“Cultural Recycling” in the 21st Century. What Does it Mean Now?

Q3 Social Sciences Antropologicheskij Forum Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.31250/1815-8870-2023-19-56-120-168
V. Vyugin
{"title":"“Cultural Recycling” in the 21st Century. What Does it Mean Now?","authors":"V. Vyugin","doi":"10.31250/1815-8870-2023-19-56-120-168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the history of the notion of “cultural recycling” in the 21st century. This is a continuation of my previous research focused on its early period which started in the 1960s. Although the expression discussed is widely known, there has been no systematic research into its evolving reception over the last half-century. The notion does not belong exclusively to any particular field of humanities; therefore, the proposed survey is inevitably interdisciplinary. Two basic trends will be at the centre of my attention. From the perspective of one, in line with the criticism of postmodern and modern society, cultural recycling was seen as a symptom of a crisis of history from the very beginning, a hallmark of the time thought to be the end of an epoch. Since political and ethical connotations were important for the theories which appropriated the term, it took, at least initially and partly, the meaning of an invective. As regards the discourse of the criticism of the “(post)modern” culture, two points are evident. On the one hand, at a certain moment, a positive attitude towards recycling began to gradually displace the negatively evaluated “eschatological” view. On the other, some scholars finally “deconstructed” it as self-contradictory. Another major trend of both the 20th and 21st century can be characterised as a form of universalism. It embraces the understandings based on the presumption that recycling is immanent, “natural” to culture. Thus, regardless of scholars’ personal intentions, one can qualify it as apologetic. In addition to various interpretations of the term, with respect to the first trend I will comment on its relationships with notions such as collective memory, nostalgia, trauma, new media, and “cultural trash”. With respect to the second, at the centre of my attention will be the issue of epigonism, interdiscursive and crosscultural forms of recycling, the usage of the term in folklore and myth studies, and in anthropology.","PeriodicalId":52194,"journal":{"name":"Antropologicheskij Forum","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antropologicheskij Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31250/1815-8870-2023-19-56-120-168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article deals with the history of the notion of “cultural recycling” in the 21st century. This is a continuation of my previous research focused on its early period which started in the 1960s. Although the expression discussed is widely known, there has been no systematic research into its evolving reception over the last half-century. The notion does not belong exclusively to any particular field of humanities; therefore, the proposed survey is inevitably interdisciplinary. Two basic trends will be at the centre of my attention. From the perspective of one, in line with the criticism of postmodern and modern society, cultural recycling was seen as a symptom of a crisis of history from the very beginning, a hallmark of the time thought to be the end of an epoch. Since political and ethical connotations were important for the theories which appropriated the term, it took, at least initially and partly, the meaning of an invective. As regards the discourse of the criticism of the “(post)modern” culture, two points are evident. On the one hand, at a certain moment, a positive attitude towards recycling began to gradually displace the negatively evaluated “eschatological” view. On the other, some scholars finally “deconstructed” it as self-contradictory. Another major trend of both the 20th and 21st century can be characterised as a form of universalism. It embraces the understandings based on the presumption that recycling is immanent, “natural” to culture. Thus, regardless of scholars’ personal intentions, one can qualify it as apologetic. In addition to various interpretations of the term, with respect to the first trend I will comment on its relationships with notions such as collective memory, nostalgia, trauma, new media, and “cultural trash”. With respect to the second, at the centre of my attention will be the issue of epigonism, interdiscursive and crosscultural forms of recycling, the usage of the term in folklore and myth studies, and in anthropology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
21世纪的“文化循环”。它现在意味着什么?
本文论述了21世纪“文化循环”概念的历史。这是我之前的研究的延续,主要集中在20世纪60年代开始的早期阶段。尽管所讨论的表达广为人知,但在过去的半个世纪里,还没有对其接受程度的演变进行系统的研究。这个概念并不只属于人文学科的某一特定领域;因此,拟议的调查不可避免地是跨学科的。我将重点关注两个基本趋势。从一个角度来看,与后现代和现代社会的批判一致,文化循环从一开始就被视为历史危机的征兆,被认为是一个时代结束的时代标志。由于政治和伦理的内涵对于使用这个术语的理论是重要的,因此,至少在最初和部分上,它具有谩骂的意思。关于“(后)现代”文化批判的话语,有两点是显而易见的。一方面,在某个时刻,积极的回收态度开始逐渐取代负面评价的“末世论”观点。另一方面,一些学者最终将其“解构”为自相矛盾。20世纪和21世纪的另一个主要趋势可以被描述为一种普遍主义。它包含了基于这样一种假设的理解,即回收对文化来说是内在的、“自然的”。因此,无论学者的个人意图如何,人们都可以将其定性为道歉。除了对这个词的各种解释之外,关于第一种趋势,我将评论它与集体记忆、怀旧、创伤、新媒体和“文化垃圾”等概念的关系。关于第二个问题,我关注的中心将是后生论,话语间和跨文化形式的循环,这个术语在民间传说和神话研究以及人类学中的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Antropologicheskij Forum
Antropologicheskij Forum Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
On Leviathan’s Tail: Anthropological Studies of Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats From Call to Emergency Card: Looking for Discretion of “112” Operators A Review of O. P. Kolomiets, I. I. Krupnik (eds.), Applied Ethnology in Chukotka: Indigenous Knowledge, Museums, Cultural Heritage (Celebrating the 125th Anniversary of Nikolai L. Gondatti’s 1895 Trip to the Chukchi Peninsula). Moscow: PressPass, 2020, 468 pp. Bureaucratic Routes and Documentary Temporalities of a Conscript Questionnaire in a Human Rights Organization Universal Rules and Discretionary Situations: How Do Street-Level Bureaucrats Calculate Suffering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1