Review of Erich Kolig on Indigenous Cultural Revival (Identity Politics) An Explicitly Constructionist (vs Essentialist) View: i.e., says retraditionalisation (RTzn) involves the assembly of a selection of deliberately chosen traditions for the expressed purpose of achieving certain desired effects in the political, legal and ideological realms (p. 7) revived culture as a strategic resource (p. 14) involves the idealization and reinvention of traditional Indigenous culture (p. 9, 12) likely to be syncretic (p. 16)

Review of Kolig (p. 2): Academic Questions About Indigenous Cultural Revival Transitional or Enduring? How relates to Post-Modernism and Globalization? The easing or abandonment of assimilationist policies, and post-modernism’s tolerance for cultural alternatives are both conducive to re-traditionalisation. (p. 8, 11) Indig cultural revival occurs at the political level as a backlash against globalization’s pressure toward westernization (cultural homogeneity – the consumerism and materialist individualism captured in the labels “CocaColonization” &“MacDonaldisation”) (p. 8) c.f.: notions of a global village

Review of Kolig (p. 3) : Authenticity Challenges Cynics regard Indigenous cultural revival as blatant, calculated opportunism (p. 10, 12), sometimes for economic gain (e.g., where sacred sites have value to the mining industry). Those cynics question the authenticity of the Indigenous cultural revival. Their Discourse: phrases like “invented traditions”, “fraudulent practices”, “spurious historical reconstructions”, “fabrications”, “concoctions”, and “reinvention of culture”.

Review of Kolig (p. 4): Reconceptualization of Culture In response, some anthropologists (e.g., R. Wagner) have refined their conception of culture to emphasize its negotiated, dynamic, and eternally shifting nature. (p ) That is, culture is now seen as a volatile, eternally metamorphising condition, rather than a stable entity. It is constantly formed and reformed by individual creativity, inventiveness, and self-interested enterprise. It is seen as always negotiable and in the midst of endorsement, contestation, and transformation. This also raises questions about the meaning of “tradition”. i.e. Does it have to have a demonstrable or verifiable continuity of great duration? Can it be modified (and if so, how much) without losing its identity?

Review of Kolig (p.5): Retraditionalisation as Anti-Hegemonic Gramsci would say that retraditionalisation emerges because the hegemon (the dominant group) has failed to win over and embrace and empower the ‘subaltern’ (subordinated) group. Therefore, retraditionalisation emerges as a counter-culture of resistance to the dominant group, even though it uses the symbols (e.g., the language of nationalism) of the hegemon.