Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Cultural Eclecticism & Irish Music


In his recent post on Caritas in Veritate, Aaron noted Pope Benedict’s call for the integral development of culture as a protection against the dangers of relativism and cultural eclecticism. An integral culture is one that forms a true unity; all the parts of such a culture fit together in a coherent way. The way these individual parts fit together is usually determined by a culture’s ethos, its ordering principles. However, if a culture doubts its own ordering principles, or if outside forces upset a culture’s ordering principles, the culture’s individual parts will be distorted in some way. They either appear too large or too small, anything but their right size, and out of all proportion to the surrounding parts of the culture.

The usual result of the breakdown of an integral culture is eclecticism. Eclecticism essentially dispenses with all ordering principles besides individual preference—which is why throughout history eclecticism has usually been closely linked to relativism in metaphysics, and commercialism in economics. Eclecticism, though, is an unfortunate name for what I mean to discuss. The word “eclecticism,” at least in my mind, usually conjures up images of agnostic elites desperately searching for meaning in the universe by scouring every culture they know for fragments of intelligibility. I think of demoralized Roman senators worshiping the latest fashionable oriental divinity, or 19th-century decadents dabbling in the occult. In the modern world, though, cultural eclecticism has assumed a new, more democratic form. Thanks to the spread of videos, sound recordings, and mere factual knowledge (on the encyclopedia model), a lonely individual can appreciate one aspect of a culture, in abstraction from the rest of the culture. Then, if the enough of the masses share this individual’s taste, the newspapers (or today, the Internet feuilleton) will announce that this particular foreign element has “entered the culture.” But, what the newspapers usually ignore, or do not even know enough to investigate, is how this new development relates to the ordering principles of the culture. All they ever really notice is that someone has become rich and famous in the process. However, the crucial question to ask is: Is this an integral development of culture?

That was all rather abstract, so what is needed is a concrete example. The example I have chosen is traditional Irish music, since it is a hobby of mine (well, more of an obsession). About fifteen years ago, traditional Irish music received a lot of popular attention due to Riverdance, the dance extravaganza starring Michael Flatley. Soon there was a craze for Irish music and dance across America, and parents with Irish surnames—and even those without Irish surnames—were signing up their little girls for dancing lessons (and buying those horrible sequined dresses). This was a major “cultural event.” Yet, after a couple years, the hype died down and Irish music and dancing in America returned to their pre-Riverdance status. At the end of the day, a lot of people had heard some Irish music, seen some amazing dancing, and Michael Flatley was a wealthy man—and people genuinely devoted to Irish music and dance returned to their prior obscurity and their small groups of like-minded individuals. Riverdance, with its incorporation of elements of tap, flamenco, and ballet, marked the victory of modern eclecticism over integral culture. Many people now realize that Riverdance was only based on traditional music and dance, but have no conception of the broader tradition. What was Irish music—and Irish culture—like before Riverdance?

To answer that question, we need to go back to the early 1800s, a time when Irish peasant culture was relatively intact. The Irish have never been a very urban people, and so most of what we think of as traditionally Irish developed in the context of the countryside. At this time, music and dancing were firmly embedded in village social life, which revolved around the farming year and the special events in a community—births, weddings, and funerals—as well as around the Church’s liturgical year. In addition to these grander events, there was the informal practice of visiting neighbors in the countryside, when it was common to tell stories, sing songs, and play a few tunes at home. Music and dance were certainly developed art forms, but they were not art in the way we educated city-dwellers usually think of art. Very few musicians earned a living by their music, though a few wandering musicians did travel from village to village and play for dances, often supplementing their meager income by other work, especially by repairing pots and pans. Moreover, while some musicians were certainly known throughout a region for their skill, they did not think of themselves as virtuosos, and did not define themselves as musicians. Instead, their art and their ego were subordinate to the needs of the community. They simply provided music so that people could dance and celebrate the most important occasions throughout the year. Their celebrations were (at least loosely) bound up with the larger cosmic perspectives of agriculture and salvation history, as well as their own life and death.

At the same time, however, Irish peasant culture was under tremendous pressure from outside. Their English lords had already been persecuting Catholic priests under the Penal Laws for many years. The English language was steadily displacing Irish. The death blow came, though, with the Potato Famine in 1845. From then on, Irish peasants left their homeland in droves, seeking new homes primarily in England and the United States. This mass exodus would last well into the 20th century. If the Irish could resist religious persecution and the loss of their native language, they could not withstand starvation and emigration.

Village life in late 19th-century Ireland was severely disrupted, and the people demoralized. With many children knowing that they were destined to leave their homes once they were old enough to find work on their own, there was understandably little call for celebration. Paradoxically, though, what kept music and dancing alive during this period was the “American wake.” American wakes were farewell parties held for members of the community the night before they left for America, and featured much music and dancing.

Constant emigration, however, eventually took its toll. Many towns and rural areas were so decimated that they did not have enough people for dances. It was at this point that many musicians simply stopped playing. If there were no dances, there was no point in playing. Music and dance were so closely connected that one without the other was barely imaginable. Modern technology in the early 20th century also undermined the foundations of the integral Irish culture. In those places that still had enough people for a dance, the record player brought new, usually American, music to the Irish countryside. People in larger towns usually rejected traditional music as uncouth and un-modern—and so did many peasants in the countryside. Interestingly enough, even recordings of Irish music in some ways had detrimental effects. Many older fiddlers abandoned their instruments when they first heard the likes of New York virtuoso Michael Coleman’s blazing reels and heavily ornamented jigs; they felt they just could not compete with Coleman.

By the first half of the 20th century, traditional Irish music was on life support. The traditional Irish village was no longer a place where most people lived, but simply a place where they were born before they decided to cross the ocean for America. Moreover, with the disappearance of the Irish language from wide parts of the island, a vast store of older sean-nos songs was lost. Finally, the spread of modern technology even to the more backward parts of Ireland discouraged people from playing traditional music.

To be continued tomorrow...

6 comments:

John said...

I really dislike Riverdance too. But Steve, doesn't this border on bigotry? I am alarmed at the superficiality of picking bits and phrases from other traditions and thinking that we're "appreciating" them. But multiculturalism can be really beautiful. Watch The Commitments and tell me you don't like it!
I think it's the same tune, just faster. Culture has always been the result of little mixing pots. Now it's just getting really mixed and really big. Your opinion represents a good correcting balance - to reconnect with the depth and context of culture. But I'm afraid our culture is becoming a product of the tools it uses to communicate. Speaking of which, where the hell did you pick up a phrase like "the Internet feuilleton"?? No, the double question marks do not mean I'm calling you a pretentious prick. I'm impressed.

Stephen said...

John,

The question of cultural interaction actually occurred to me, and I knew you would object because I didn't address that issue. I guess I know you well enough to know what you'll say about my writings. The simple reason why I didn't write about cultural interaction is time and space constraints--two long posts could easily have turned into four long posts.

But, just to set the record straight, Irish music in the early 1800s was anything but unchanging. In fact, most of the traditional dance music that has survived probably comes from the second half of the 1700s. (So, the tradition in its "classic" form was not ancient; however, it does have a lot in common with other European folk cultures.) Moreover, one of the quintessentially Irish instruments--the uillean pipes--was invented around that time, based on influences from Scotland and native ingenuity. The Irish (at least in some areas, like Donegal and Kerry) also incorporated new dance rhythms from Poland, the polka and the mazurka. Nevertheless, as you correctly point out, these changes took place slowly, and enriched the music, but did not change its cultural function.

By the way, it's spooky how on your site you pick out the quote: "The Irish are the blacks of Europe." It's spooky because I end the essay tomorrow with a quote from an Irish fiddler with similar overtones.

Stephen said...

There's an interesting article in this morning's Wall Street Journal about increased emigration from Ireland. One of the interesting details in the article is that it has become much harder to field sports teams in the rural villages of the west of Ireland--just like it was hard to find enough people for a dance:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125132162898261745.html

Aaron Linderman said...

It seems to me that the problem with cultural eclecticism is not the mixing and matching, per se, but mindlessly doing so, and ending up with two left shoes, so to speak. Legitimate cultural interaction, though it mixes and matches, is more sensitive to the overall cultural framework. This is why Steve's comment about changes taking places slowly is relevant; it's not simply that conservatives freak out when change happens too quickly, but with something like cultural interaction, time is needed to reflect on the extent to which a new juxtaposition is or is not working.

Lisbeth Salander said...

I believe that the cultural development isn't a obstacle in the today world.. because, All persons have the right to be proud of your cultural identity

Aaron Linderman said...

Carl, I think the issue at stake is whether a culture is authentic or not. If I arbitrarily decide one day that part of my cultural identity is to wear socks on my ears, is it really? The problem is not that there is anything fundamentally wrong with wearing socks on your ears, but that it's not really part of my culture. It's hard to be proud of a cultural identity that's bogus.

What, then, is an authentic culture? Because I think you're right: anyone can be proud of their cultural identity. But what is real culture, as opposed to sock-wearing silliness? That's what we're trying to understand.