THE TWO-EDGED CYBERSWORD:

HOW SPEED AND REACH ARE AFFECTING

 INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD

Constance Kampf

University of Minnesota

 

Abstract. The intersection of culture and technology plays a critical role in the preservation and diffusion of cultural practices and artifacts for Indigenous peoples throughout the world. The speed and reach of the internet increase the global impact and possibility of cultural artifacts and ideas to be either diffused or appropriated. For Indigenous peoples, the internet can serve as a voice in the new global order as well as a medium through which their artifacts and ideas are diffused internationally. In order to explore the significance of the internet for Indigenous communities around the world, this paper examines the relationship between culture and the diffusion of technology in international contexts, as well as the relationship between technology and the diffusion of culture. It also looks at the didjerdu from the Yolngu people of Australia as an example of an Indigenous artifact with a large web presence, and uses Gajjala’s notion of re-empowerment (1999) to set up a framework for understanding appropriation and diffusion as part of a bidirectional conversation. This conversation relies on an understanding that includes Indigenous peoples as both appropriators of internet technology and diffusers of cultural artifacts.

Introduction

For Indigenous peoples1, there is no virtual reality that can erase the real life context of marginalization in which the cybersword cuts both ways. Internet technology allows for incredibly fast appropriation and diffusion of Indigenous artifacts and traditions. The manner in which this process is described can create a reality in which Indigenous communities are seen as having power or not due to the inherent power characteristics present in the words "appropriate" and "diffuse." The speed and reach of the internet increase the global impact and possibility of cultural artifacts and ideas to be either diffused or appropriated, as we will see in the example of the didjeridu from the Yolngu of Northeastern Australia.

The positive implications that come about when we look at Indigenous appropriation of the internet include the development of a pan-Indigenous cosmopolitan "thin" culture, a forum for pan-Indigenous concerns that reaches across the globe, and the diffusion of Indigenous artifacts on a global scale with the guidance of Indigenous peoples who maintain rights to their cultural property.  Given the social situations and political issues that Indigenous peoples are dealing with around the globe, as well as historical attitudes towards indigenous cultures and artifacts, some of these positive implications are just beginning to come about.  In order to begin to understand how Indigenous peoples may be appropriating the internet, I will review other studies which show uses of the internet in various cultural contexts, examining first the relationship between culture and the diffusion of technology in international contexts, and second the relationship between technology and the diffusion of culture.  Then, I will look at how the speed and reach of the internet have the capacity to spread appropriation and diffusion of Indigenous cultural practices and artifacts through the example of the didjeridu or yidaki, a musical instrument sacred to the Yolngu people of Australia (Yunupingu 1997). Finally, I will show the other side of CMC which offers re-empowerment (Gajjala 1999) through an understanding of the relationship between appropriation and diffusion as a two-way conversation which respects an ethos of Indigenous peoples by portraying them as experts who are choosing to share some of their knowledge rather than as subjects to be studied.  Note that since the internet is ever changing, site descriptions in this paper refer to the site as it was on the date accessed. 

 

The Relationship Between Culture and the Diffusion of Technology in International Contexts

 

Culture itself is complex and difficult to define. Oftentimes transparent, it nevertheless factors into the way people use technology, communicate across cultures with the technology, and form community via technology. The following case studies show parts of the intersection of new technologies with the complexity of culture. The relationship between culture and the diffusion of technology in various contexts begins to build a framework for looking at the interaction between appropriation and diffusion with regard to Indigenous traditions and CMC.  

In order to understand the interaction between Indigenous communities and CMC as a cybersword that cuts both ways-- resulting in both appropriation and diffusion, we need to begin with a theoretical framework to contextualize the relationship between culture and the diffusion of new technology. Rogers (1995) discusses theories of diffusion that seem to work in western-based cultures, while at the same time discussing examples of western innovations that were less successful than indigenous systems and asking the question: Are Indigenous knowledge systems important in the introduction of technological innovations? Talking about introduction to, rather than appropriation by Indigenous cultures implies a disempowerment for Indigenous peoples with regard to technology. We can approach the use of the internet by Indigenous peoples as an appropriation, applied to the problem of communicating with the global village. In the same manner, we can also approach the widespread use of Indigenous cultural artifacts as diffusion. The inversion of these terms changes our view of the power structure, and brings assumptions underlying the notion of "progress" into question.

The following case studies demonstrate how technology is often adopted in ways that reinforce, rather than change the cultural assumptions of the new users.  They address observations of the appropriation of CMC technologies in a Kuwaiti cultural context, language based attitudes towards communication technology in Switzerland and the effects of these attitudes on appropriation of CMC technology, and an analysis of the newsgroup soc.culture.thai from the Thai perspective, which looks at how newsgroups are being appropriated in Thailand in different ways than they are used in the west. These case studies give us an expanded view of the internet by going beyond U.S. based CMC studies and their underlying cultural assumptions, and showing us that the technology of the internet is received and applied in different ways in different cultural contexts. This concept of cultural groups appropriating CMC to fit within their own value and cultural system is fundamental to an analysis focused on Indigenous peoples and their appropriation of CMC technology.

Wheeler (1998) shows how the adoption of internet technology in Kuwait fits within the cultural norms and values of Kuwaiti society-- norms and values which differ from the underlying cultural assumptions of democratic participation and free speech that Western creators of the technology hold.  She focuses on the local cultural frameworks which play an important and under-recognized role in the kinds of practices that are enabled by networked communications and adaptations to the global economy. Wheeler argues that addition of technology to a system does not induce change by itself. Rather the views and customs of the people will be reflected by the manner in which they choose to use the technology.

Wheeler points out the conflicting values between U.S. and Kuwaiti society including perception of expression of one's opinion (which is considered a fundamental right in the U.S. and dangerous in Kuwait), the force of community over individualism, the Kuwaiti value of cooperation and humility over the U.S. values of individuality and public relations. Wheeler also discusses the politics of Kuwait where democracy is so narrowly defined that only 10% of the population are allowed to vote, and couches it in the oil-rich economic system that has been developed so that basic needs are subsidized. Wheeler finds that in Kuwait at the present time, the principal uses for CMC are limited to IRC with other Kuwaitis in internet cafe-type environments. Wheeler also suggests that the value of privacy and lack of economic competition in Kuwait is linked to the low number of web pages produced there.   In summary, Wheeler found that as the Kuwaiti people appropriated the technology of the internet, they applied it in ways that were consistent with their own cultural values rather than the values of the Western societies that created the technology. 

Looking at the diffusion of the internet in Switzerland, Rey (1998) also looks at how underlying cultural assumptions and values of peoples (as defined by language group) affect the diffusion of internet technology.  She finds a correlation between cultural attitudes (defined by language groups) towards technology and CMC diffusion throughout the country. Rey describes the uneven diffusion of communication technology in Switzerland occurring along language lines. Switzerland has four national languages, three Latin-based languages and German. Rey observes that the technology is being diffused more rapidly in the Latin-based language speaking areas than in the German speaking areas. She uses a survey showing the perception of media as a part of culture to be significantly lower in the German speaking areas than in the Latin-based speaking areas of Switzerland and correlates the results with internet diffusion.  Rey also notes that across language group differences in attitudes towards technology and play could explain why the more playful speakers of Latin-based languages are getting on-line.  Again, as Wheeler showed with the Kuwaiti culture and the diffusion of the internet, Rey also demonstrates a pattern of diffusion that varies across cultural groups and correlates with cultural values. 

In addition to Rey and Wheeler, Hongladarom (1998, 2001) also discusses the diffusion of the internet in the form of newsgroups in Thailand. Hongladarom finds that the internet reduplicates the existing cultural boundaries as well.  He also observes that at the same time the diffusion of internet technology creates a cosmopolitan culture necessary for cross-cultural communication. He approaches the language issue that Rey did, and in addition, poses the question of whether and to what extent the internet brings about the homogenization of the local cultures in the world through an analysis of the newsgroup soc.culture.thai. Hongladarom examines two threads of discussion for this analysis, dealing with criticisms of the Thai government and political leaders, and the issue of whether the Thai language should become a medium or the medium of the newsgroup. Hongladarom observes that computer-mediated discourse is affected by Thai cultural attitudes in a meaningful way. He describes the mixed use of languages (English and Thai) which reveals more intention to communicate with a small close knit community than to be understood by the global community outside. Hongladarom posits this use of Thai in the newsgroup as empowering because English is only used as a second language in Thailand, which puts Thai native speakers at a disadvantage in the newsgroup forum.

Hongladarom also discusses the relationship between Western culture and the notion of cosmopolitan culture which he defines as coming out of "the need for people from different cultures to communicate or to do things with one another" (2001:317). He posits cosmopolitan culture as separate from Western culture even though he states that: "It is true that cosmopolitan culture originated in the West, because the need for finding common ground among people of disparate beliefs was first felt there; that, however, does not mean that the two cultures are one and the same (2001: 317).

Hongladarom comes to the conclusion that the"internet and local cultures both determine each other" (2001:321). The connection between local and internet cultures is shown in terms of the attitudes towards CMC and the ideology attached to the technology which is not necessarily absorbed by people who are appropriating CMC. Hongladarom's conclusion about the mutual determination of internet and local culture supports the notion that first, there is relationship between culture and the diffusion of CMC, and second that the underlying cultural norms and values of the adopter do not shift to the cultural norms and values of the technology creators. 

Wheeler, Rey, and Hongladarom show how the adoption of internet technology fits within existing cultural values and norms. In addition, Hongladarom proposes the notion of a cosmopolitan culture which is separate from western culture and will not react homogeneously in different locales. With reference to Indigenous cultures, we can apply the notion of cosmopolitan culture from the point of view of Indigenous peoples creating a cosmopolitan culture among themselves. This shared "thin" culture appears to be emerging, based on shared values concerning their relationship with the land as well as shared oppression in terms of their interaction with the power structures of the nation states in which they are situated.

 

The Relationship Between Technology and the Diffusion of Cultural Ideas and Artifacts

 

Most often when we think of diffusion, we focus on modern technology such as CMC.  However, we can also look at other cultural ideas and artifacts which are diffused through the technology of the internet.  In this case, the internet moves from being the focus of the investigation into diffusion practices, and instead becomes part of the conduit for diffusion of cultural ideas and artifacts.  We can see the internet functioning as conduit through a review of studies that show cases in which cultural ideas and artifacts are both being maintained and diffused through the internet in diasporic communities.  In addition, we will also examine the assumptions of cultural ideas as inherent in the technology of the internet, looking at the question of metaphors we use for understanding the internet and some underlying assumptions inherent in those metaphors.  These assumptions need to be rethought in order to see the internet as a tool for re-empowerment for Indigenous peoples.

 

Diffusion of Culture through Diasporic On-Line Communities

 

Because of the estranged situation in which Indigenous peoples live, some of the features of diasporic web presences can also help inform us about ways that cultural ideas and artifacts can be diffused through the internet.  This estranged situation includes residing inside of political states as a minority, and often as part of a social situation similar to people who are part of diasporic communities – although not strangers in a foreign land like diasporic community members, indigenous peoples can be considered as surrounded by strangers in their own land. These diasporic case studies demonstrate ways in which the internet functions as a medium for both preservation of cultural ideas and identity, as well as diffusion of cultural artifacts. Thus, the internet has the potential to function in the same manner for Indigenous peoples, helping to preserve cultural ideas and identity, as well as diffusing Indigenous artifacts. 

Diasporic communities are made up of migrants who have left their home region, maintain contact with each other and continue their cultural practices in foreign environments. These communities are generally bound together by collective memory and in the past have often experienced cultural fossification caused by working so hard to preserve traditions that their version of the home culture becomes out of sync with actual practices in the culture they left behind. For diasporic people, the internet can used as a tool to maintain their culture through creating collective memory with a web presence, as well as a tool that affects their culture by allowing for a level of freedom of speech and democracy not allowed in many of their home countries.

Two examples of case studies showing different uses of the internet by diasporic communities are Mitra’s case study of a system of websites maintained by the diasporic community from India (1997), and Gajjala’s study of SAWNET which is a discussion group for South Asian Women living in the West (1999).

Mitra defines a topology for the diasporic netspace as having spaces that are addressed to particular audiences- some being for in-group members only, others addressing both in-group and out-group members, and others existing mainly as a representation for the out-group members to learn about Indian1 culture. He uses the notion of space, but focuses on the preservation, participation, and presentation of Indian culture by members of the Indian diaspora.  Mitra discusses an Indian website and its links to a community of intertextual sites about India, discussing the community in terms of in-group/out-group audiences and how the presence of these audiences is acknowledged and met through web design.

Mitra uses four factors in his observation: language, the use of symbols, arrangement of information (including the label "new"), and content (what is presented, and what is left unsaid). Through these factors, he analyzes a set of websites hyperlinked together as a combined presence of the diasporic Indian community on the web.  Mitra discusses the web presence in terms of the way the sites address in-group and out-group audiences through format, language, multimedia and links. He also describes the dual role that diasporic websites play, both connecting an in-group diasporic community and presenting a public face to the out-group.(p.177)

In contrast to the spaces designed to communicate with both in-group and out-group participants described by Mitra, Gajjala (1999) talks about SAWNET1 as a mailing list that served to recreate collective memory among the diasporic women from South East Asia, and help them address problematic issues including the notion of empowerment and being caught between Western feminist ideals and Eastern cultural identity. Gajjala's position with respect this community is as an active participant, writer and poet. From her inside point of view, Gajjala finds that "it would seem that what is happening online is actually a replaying of discourse that circulates within real life communities." She found that the nature of the discussions was dependent on the "politics of interaction within real life communities."

Through these examples, we can see that the internet is being used as a medium for preservation, participation, and presentation of cultural discourse and artifacts in the websites set up by people of Indian diaspora.  Also, the replay of real world discourse issues and politics within cyberspace found on SAWNET demonstrates the usegroup acting as a transparent medium which carries the same issues and politics found in real life. As we examine appropriation and diffusion in the interaction of Indigenous cultures and CMC, we can apply these features found in diasporic on-line communities-- preservation, participation and presentation of cultural discourse, and attention to issues and politics present in real life.

 

Rethinking the Assumptions of Cultural Ideas as Inherent in Technology

 

Through interaction with the web in diffusion and appropriation, Indigenous cultures bring new perspectives to the global village, asking us to rethink our assumptions. As the connection between local cultures and the use, diffusion and appropriation of CMC gains support as a foundational notion for understanding CMC, the necessity of identifying and revisiting our assumptions also becomes evident. Ess and Sudweeks (1998) challenge us to look deeper into the assumptions that the global village metaphor carries. Then, Gunkel and Gunkel (1997) take us back to 1492 and Columbus discovering the new world, draw striking parallels between his perception of the new world and the utopian view of the Global village, and ask us to reflect on ethnocentrism@reality.edu, commercialism@wealth.com, and utopianism@community.gov.

Ess and Sudweeks (1998) lay out the assumptions of the global village as:

 

They criticize both utopian and dystopian stances on the "inevitable spread" of technology. In order to question these assumptions, Ess and Sudweeks (1998) ask us to look at the role that culture "might play in shaping our fundamental assumptions and attitudes towards technology and communication."

Gunkel and Gunkel (1997) relate the new world of technology metaphor to the "discovery" of Columbus in order to remind us that thinking of technology as a "new world" is not a neutral act, but brings with it the implicit power of that is implied in the act of discovery. They point out the ethnocentrism implicit in not recognizing the distinct cultural frame of reference that we as bring with us such as the Cartesian coordinates, as well as the cultural frames of reference present in our studies. Gunkel and Gunkel argue for awareness that names and metaphors used to understand cyberspace will affect its development -- in other words, "what cyberspace becomes will, to great extent, depend on what we call it" (p. 133).

Indigenous perspectives on CMC technologies further complicate the issue by bringing appropriation and community copyright issues to the table, and by asking us to question how we see their use of CMC technology - is it diffusion or appropriation? The following discussion of the cybersword cutting both ways with reference to Indigenous cultures and the internet turns our notions of both diffusion and appropriation into reciprocal processes. The case study of the didjeridu, the sites responding to appropriation, and the sites presenting Indigenous ideas to the world from an ethos of expert, show that interaction with Indigenous cultures via the internet is a bidirectional process.  Diffusion and appropriation made possible through the speed and reach of CMC technologies cut both ways-- affecting the cultures of the first world as well as Indigenous cultures.

 

Speed and Reach in Appropriation and Diffusion -- the Didjeridu

 

The didjeridu from Australia presents a compelling case for examination.  The didjeridu, or didj as it is often called, is a musical instrument with a sizeable web presence.  Informal searches in Google.com have brought up as many as 110,000 hits or more over the past year.3  The didjeridu is used by some of the Indigenous peoples there as both a musical instrument, and a sacred part of the dreamtime rituals.  First we will examine some sites about the didjeridu, and then we will discuss ways to analyze these sites through lenses set up for understanding diasporic communities by Mitra (1998) and Gajjala (1999), and finally conclude with implications for further research in CMC with respect to notions of intercultural dialogue.

The didjeridu, also known as the didjeridoo or yidaki, is a musical instrument that comes from the Aboriginal people of Northeast Australia, called the Yolngu. Information about the didjeridu is widely available on the internet, with a search on "didgeridoo" in Altavista.com revealing over 22,000 hits as of May 2000, and over 110,000 in April 2003. According to an analysis of 100 of these sites by Kibbey (1999), this information represents different types of cultural exchange. These types of cultural exchange include appropriation of aspects of aboriginal culture for urban primitivism, the diffusion of Aboriginal musical practices resulting in the creation of new meanings across cultures, and the agency of Aboriginal peoples regarded as experts. In places as far away as Germany, there are an estimated 26,000 didjeridu dealers (Schulz 1999). The popularity of the didjeridu has led to a renewed interest in Aboriginal culture, a proliferation of the didjeridu as an object of commerce separated from its original cultural context (Neuenfeldt 1997), and an estimated multi-million dollar industry (Schulz 1999). As imitation didjeridu instruments are manufactured, Indigenous spokespeople are asking for the right to require licensing agreements so that imitations do not drive Indigenous didjeridu makers out of business (Schulz 1999).

 

Appropriation of Aspects of Aboriginal Culture for Urban Primitivism

The appropriation of the didjeridu and the created, new age type context can be seen throughout the Allan Shockley4 site, Figure 1.1, below. Allan Shockley is a U.S. based artist, and the site presented him as the author. His site explains his work as an artist, and showcases ways in which he creates innovations in the instrument itself. The site also presented him as the first full time didjeridu teacher in the United States.

Figure 1.1 Allan Shockley Homepage

http://www.allanshockley.com  date accessed: Sept. 26, 2002

 

Allan Shockley’s site acknowledged the origins of the didjeridu in the section Teachings, and paid brief respect to the aboriginal traditions through his bio, explaining how he encountered the didjeridu and the significance of the instrument in his life. However, the site remained a type of "urban primitivism" or "new age interpretation" due to the emphasis on the healing aspects of the didjeridu outside of the context of its’ origins.

Figure 1.2 Allan Shockley Site Teachings section

http://www.allanshockley.com/in_the_beginning.htm  date accessed: Sept. 26, 2002.

 

 

In the Teachings section, Figure 1.2, Shockley divided the content into 2 major categories, In the beginning, and Today. The effect of this division was to acknowledge where the didjeridu and traditions came from, while claiming a universalism for the didjeridu, that it is a science, which anyone can pursue with training rather than the cultural property and sacred tradition of one group of people. Shockley5 described the sounds of the didjeridu as part of a science:

Without intent, the most powerful of tools have no direction. Our Will is what creates the direction of intent. If we can direct our intent to the creation of Sacred Sounds created by our Sacred Breath of Life, and offer this to the Sacred Oneness of all things for the purpose of balancing and healing, we can be a part of a most powerful process. We can merge the frequencies of the body and become a tool and channel for our Creator to do miracles of healing and balancing. There are already a handful of people out there starting to do this. These are the new pioneers of an ancient science, which began over 60,000 years ago with aborigines of Australia.

 

In the above quotation, Shockley refers to the Aborigines of Australia as people who initiated an ancient science, a science that has the didgeridu as an artifact yet goes beyond the notion of merely playing the instrument. Shockley, through his use of the term science, tries to create new meaning by bringing together the traditions of the Aborigines with the scientific tradition that is respected in the west. Although many scientists may not agree with Shockley’s analysis, his use of the term "science" in reference to the Aboriginal people of Australia demonstrates his respect for their traditions from the western point of view. However, the site doesn’t create new meaning across cultures because, however respectful the intent may have been, Shockley doesn’t engage in dialogue with Aboriginal cultures in his site. He simply refers to them as the past on which he is building and pioneering a new future through the didjeridu. Shockley acknowledges the historical role that the Aboriginal peoples played in relation to the didjeridu without claiming to be one of them, and invites everyone to participate in the "science" of sound from which the didjeridu came into existence. This invitation to become a kind of scientist through practice rather than learning about the didjeridu through cultural context is a sophisticated form of new age/urban primitivism against which many sites run by Aboriginal peoples speak out.

 

Diffusion of Aboriginal Musical Practices Resulting in the Creation of New Meaning Across Cultures

In contrast with the Shockley site, other sites emphasize and link extensively to the Aboriginal cultural context of the didjeridu. An excellent example of a site that both acknowledges and links extensively to sites by Aboriginal peoples about the didjeridu as well as their culture and history is Dreamtime: The Didjeridoo W3 Server, a U.S. based site maintained by Toyoji Tomita at http://www.mills.edu/LIFE/CCM/DIDJERIDU/, shown in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Dreamtime: The Didjeridoo W3 Server by Toyoji Tomita

http://www.mills.edu/LIFE/CCM/DIDJERIDU, Accessed: Sept. 25, 2002.

The Dreamtime site goes beyond the simple acknowledgement of the origins of the didjeridu that we find in Shockley’s site, to state a charter that declares 6.

• The objective of this site is to serve the interests of the growing population of didjeridu players around the net world.
• To provide accurate and informative information concerning all aspects of the didjeridu.
• To expose readers to Aborigine art and culture.
• Foster a respect for the instrument, and its originators.

Tomita takes a strong ideological stand that the instrument should not be separated from the knowledge of the culture and context in which it was created. Here Tomita is acknowledging the new community, while maintaining that the didjeridu needs to be connected to the history and origins of the instrument. Instead of providing the information as a part of the site, or having Aboriginal people as co-authors to the site, Tomita provides many links to sites which demonstrate Aboriginal people as experts.

One section of this site, with Myths and Legends, was altered by Tomita at the request of a group of Aboriginal people. Tomita links to the e-mail he received requesting the information be removed, rather than the original page. Although the exchange happened in 1997, Tomita continues to respect the request by showing the conversation rather than the information. The altered page can be seen in Figure 1.4.

Figure 1.4 Altered Page from Tomita’s Dreamtime site

http://www.mills.edu/LIFE/CCM/DIDJERIDU/intro_didj/temp.html

date accessed: Sept. 25, 2002.

 

The site also links to the e-mail conversation, which shows the e-mail request by the Aboriginal people and Tomita’s questions to another colleague in the community. Here Tomita discusses the issue of sharing information, and the contrasting values between the cultures—with his value of freedom of information conflicting directly with the traditional values of secrecy for certain cultural information held by the Aboriginal peoples. Tomita’s site reaches out with the clear goal of building understanding, respect and context for the didjeridu in terms of Aboriginal culture.

 

Agency of Aboriginal peoples regarded as experts

In contrast to the sites set up by non-aboriginal peoples, many Australian sites present Aboriginal peoples as experts sharing some of their culture and parts of their knowledge about the didjeridu or yidaki. Here we will look at three of the sites which present Aboriginal peoples as experts-- Mainkay.com, Djalu.com, and the Maningrida Arts and Culture site.

The Manikay.com Website is dedicated to the Aboriginal Peoples of Arnhem Land, but not created by them. This site allows users to search databases of information about Traditional Aboriginal Arnhem music. The Manikay homepage can be seen in Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5 Manikay.com website

http://manikay.com 

date accessed September 27, 2002.

 

 

Notice the dedication, which shows that the site is not created by the Aboriginal Peoples of Arnhemland, but about them. The author of this site is J.H. Burrows, who demonstrates that he is familiar with the customs of the Aboriginal Peoples of Arnhem Land through his warning for viewers to be sensitive to the culture of Aboriginal peoples who may be viewing the site. However, he doesn’t follow the culture norms of the people to whom he has dedicated the site, allowing pictures and information that may offend the relatives and clans people of the artists. Although Burrows is recognizing and acknowledging the Aboriginal peoples as the experts, he still knowingly violates their cultural norms and expectations.

The next site that shows Aboriginal people as experts is authored by a didjeridu artist and musician for his family business, which sells his music and handmade didjeridu instruments. The site author is Djalu' Gurruwiwi, an Aborigine who has many recordings in the Manikay site. The site name is djalu.com and the homepage is shown in Figure 1.6.

 

Figure 1.6 Djalu’ Gurruwiwi Home Page

http://www.djalu.com, date accessed September 27, 2002.

 

The djalu.com site opens with didjeridu music and Flash animations that include pictures of children, handprints, and animated dots which reflect traditional aboriginal art patterns in an abstract manner. The site describes itself as the cumulative work of many people, not the least of which being Djalu’ himself.  Djalu’ presents himself in the Information section of the site, speaking directly to a Balanga (non-aboriginal) audience. The Objectives section of Djalu’s information page can be seen in Figure 1.7.
Figure 1.7 Objectives of Djalu’s site

http://www.djalu.com/information/index.html, date accessed September 27, 2002.

 

 

Here Djalu’ lists and credits family members who help him with his company, Rripngu Yirdaki. He also speaks directly to his intended audience, the Balanga. On the page in Figure 1.7, Djalu’ states that:

 Djalu’s wish to bridge cultures and take part in the Reconciliation process brings the some of the critical issues between the Aborigines and the Balanga to the surface—issues of bridging cultures and respect. He offers to begin a dialogue through the site itself, encouraging people to contact him by offering email message components which allow for a description of what you are looking for and give you space to send a direct message along with a request to buy a didjeridu.

In contrast to Djalu’s profession of wanting to share his culture and take part in the Reconciliation process, the Maningrida Arts and Culture site shows a very different reception of the Balanga interest in the didjeridu. The Maningrida Arts and culture site contains an article written by Murray Guarde which shows the problematic side of aboriginal/balanga relations with respect to the didjeridu.

Figure 1.8 Maningrida Arts and Culture Site- Didjeridu Article by Murray Garde

http://www.bu.aust.com/%7Emaningrida/gallery/didj/didj.html,

date accessed September 27, 2002.

 

In this essay on the didjeridu, Garde describes problems that Aboriginal people have with Balanga uses of the didjeridu. Garde quotes from interviews with Aboriginal peoples in their Indigenous language, followed by a translation into English. The use of two languages provides a strong sense of authenticity for the information in the quotes. One example of a quote that reveals some of the tensions between the traditional and Balanga uses of the didjeridu comes from the page in Figure 1.8. Here Garde quotes addresses the issue of cultural misunderstanding:

The didjeridu's transformation from its Arnhem Land origins to global icon status has not been without misunderstanding and some distortion of traditional perceptions of the instrument's role in song accompaniment. Aboriginal people in southern parts of Australia who have recently adopted the didjeridu and promote it as a pan-Aboriginal item of material culture have also adopted many of these distortions as promoted in New Age ideology. Tom Djelkwarrngi Wood, an Aboriginal Heritage Officer at Maningrida Arts and Culture made the following comment (in the Kuninjku language) on this phenomena:

 

Ngabin-nang Balanda birri-buhmeng, minj njale man-dule karrmeninj makka djal dule-yak ‘no meaning’. Mako konda beh ngad ngarri-karrme minj bedberre walem-beh, la Balanda ngandi-nang ngadberre wanjh ngandi-ngundjikang ngadberre bedda. Ngabin-nang Balanda ‘sort of like hippies’, ngal-kudji daluk yimarnek borrkkemeninj djal larrk ‘no meaning’. Ngad mako ngarri-karrme mulil ken, djabbi, kun-borrk, daluk mararradj man-dule-ken. Ngadberre mako reykurrmeninj minj bedberre walem-beh. Balanda bu birri-mey mako but bale ka-yime bu kabirri-bengkan. Bu kabirri-wernhbekkan man-dule ngarri-wayini kare wanjh kabirri-bengkan. 

Through this citation, Garde points out the feelings of ownership and identity that are associated with the didjeridu for Aboriginal peoples. The association of tune, song, and meaning with the traditional music in opposition to the tuneless, songless, and meaningless use of the didjeridu by the Balnaga sets up a rigid framework.  This dichotomy doesn’t encourage dialogue, but instead labels "the other" across cultures. Garde goes on to identify Aboriginal people’s descriptions of Balanga didjeridu music as being akin to meaningless airplane noise. He claims that aboriginal people find this music humorous and without much artistic merit. In addition, he goes on to claim that: 

Garde’s concern for the didjeridu taken out of context focuses on the loss of identity and recognition for traditional aboriginal musicians. He believes this loss will come from widespread use of the didjeridu in the global context. Garde uses the UNESCO World Heritage terms in an extreme fashion, implying that the use of the didjeridu outside the context of aboriginal culture will deny traditional songmen and women any recognition for their role as ‘bearers of important intangible cultural property.’

All three sites-- Manikay.com, Djalu.com, and the Maningrida Arts and Culture site-- acknowledge the expertise of aboriginal artists, and present varying views concerning how Indigenous people should respond to the cross cultural issues inherent in the spread of the didjeridu. Manikay.com treats the spread of the didjeridu as a fact, and appears to set up the site for mixed Balanga/Aboriginal access, while warning people that seeing pictures of artists who have since died may be offensive to Aboriginal people accessing the site. Djalu treats the spread of the didjeridu as an opportunity for diffusion, offering to share his knowledge openly and to contribute to reconciliation between his people and the Balanga. Finally, the Maningrida Arts and Culture site focuses on the relationship of the didjeridu to the loss of identity and recognition for Indigenous peoples. These three differing perspectives give an overview of the complexity of the diffusion/appropriation cycles which occur when Indigenous technologies are spread through the internet. In turn, the different kinds of sites for the didjeridu all over the world including the "new age"/"urban primitive" sites which appropriate the didjeridu out of context, the sites where diffusion of the didjeridu and cross cultural understanding is the central focus, and the sites which recognize the expertise of the Indigenous peoples, all present different sides of the cross- cultural dialogue that the didjeridu appears to be initiating. The internet can help to empower Indigenous peoples if others chose to listen. Indigenous peoples have a voice on the internet, but to hear it we need to be aware and chose to both listen and acknowledge them.

The diffusion and appropriation rate of the didjeridu as both cultural icon and commercial object have been accelerated by the speed and reach of the internet. So how do we look at the process? Using the constructs observed in the interactions of diasporic communities by Mitra (1997), and Gajjala (1999), respectively, we can look for:

 

Preservation of cultural discourse with respect to the traditional uses of the didjeridu is not being shared through the internet directly, due to the traditional secrecy of the ceremonial uses of the instrument. (Neuenfeldt 1997). Instead, a cross-cultural dialogue about the use of the didjeridu in popular music contexts is being shared. The plethora of didj sites on the web include discussions about breathing techniques, making didjeridus from different materials including clay, yucca, and pvc pipe, and musical recordings of various artists using the didjeridu. There are several sites with bulletin boards which allow for dialogue, as well as sites by Aboriginal people which present their viewpoint on the didjeridu. This view of the communication as discourse and a conversation allows for the didjeridu to be seen as diffusion of aboriginal culture around the world.

Transparency of the medium with regard to real world issues and politics in real life is also apparent when sites such as www.didj.com offer options for people to join the tribe, and lack formal acknowledgement of aboriginal peoples and traditions in the site structure. Real world examples of disrespect toward the didjeridu exist as well, such as the following quote from Burnham Burnham, who recounts his experience at an alterIndigenous festival (Sherwood 1997):

One Down to Earth Festival followed the other -- until I received a devastating shock at the Berri festival in South Australia ... I journeyed from Berri and enticed a bus-load of traditional performers from the Olmbulgarru-Kununurra area of the Kimberley region of Western Australia. By arrangement they were to perform around a campfire hosted by white hippies. The didjeridu players, clap stick artists, singers and dancers were performing when, to my horror, a nude male crazily picked up the end of the didjeridu while it was being played and placed his erect penis into it. The horror and shame of that single act made me hate whites... My feelings of revulsion were all the more intense as I knew that the performers came from an area where they had seen the destruction of their burial sites and hunting grounds by white men.

 

The conversation that takes place on the internet is transparent to the issues of respect and history. The potential exists for similar disrespectful treatment of Indigenous cultures from real life to be repeated. The potential results are similar feelings of revulsion from the side of Indigenous peoples who see parts of their culture being turned into commercial artifacts without either their permission or acknowledgement of cultural ownership.

Looking at sites that refer to Indigenous artifacts as part of a cultural and intercultural discourse on the web, yet situated in the context of the issues and politics in real life gives us the opportunity to understand and allow for a more open cross-cultural dialogue. Yunupingu (1997), one of the Yolngu people, includes the notion of the didjeridu as being used in the healing process between Yolngu and Balanda (Euro-Australians) in his description of the instrument, placing agency in the hands of both sides of the conversation. Further research using this framework of interaction between diffusion and appropriation can work to create a more respectful stance towards the conversations that we have via CMC. Viewing and describing cultural diffusion and appropriation in terms of sharing as part of a healing process, when done purposefully and with agency, may give us a different world view. This view is not merely limited to the existing power structure, but also comes out of CMC and how CMC allows for conversation through speed and reach. Through the virtual conversation, guidelines for cultural respect are being developed as we interact across cultures.

Responses to Appropriation

Looking at the interaction between appropriation and diffusion as a two way street, or a cybersword that cuts both ways, we can see CMC being appropriated by Indigenous peoples to respond to what they see as inappropriate uses of their cultural artifacts. This issue touches on both the notions of cultural property with respect to copyright, and the ability to reach other cultures in order to participate in a public conversation that crosses cultures. In this section, I will take a brief look at site set up by groups of Indigenous peoples from Canada.  I will use Hunt’s notion of ethos as a habitual gathering place (1996), and look at how the graphical presentations, information provided about organization members, and content indicated by links are used in different ways to create an ethos of Indigenous people as experts. The site URL is www.nativemaps.org (The Aboriginal Mapping Network).  This site portrays an ethos of Indigenous people as linked together, and people who have expertise that goes beyond Western culture and that could benefit the whole world.  The site is published by a non-profit agency, called Ecotrust Canada, which works together with different first nations in Canada on the issue of Geological Information Systems and land resource allocation.   The home page, http://www.nativemaps.org can be seen in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2.1. The Aboriginal Mapping Network Homepage

http://www.nativemaps.org/index.html, accessed on July 15, 2003.

 

The Aboriginal Mapping Network Site home page appears to be a habitual gathering place because it has timely news, such as nominations for the Buffet award, which is awarded annually to Native American activists and scholars.  Also the addition of the "new" graphic helps point out recent additions to habitual visitors.  The current date in the upper right- hand corner also shows the current date, with dates assigned to the news stories as well.  This attention to dates, with the most recent material on top, also suggests that site visitors are considered to be habitual visitors rather than single time viewers. 

The organizations that sponsor the site are largely Indigenous peoples, described in the site as follows:

The Aboriginal Mapping Network was created through the leadership of three organizations, the Gitxsan Nation, the Ahousaht Nation and Ecotrust Canada. From discussions with these three groups along with the Kwakiutl and Haisla Nations, it was agreed upon that Ecotrust Canada should be the managing body. Ecotrust Canada has assumed responsibility for maintaining the web site, co-hosting the roundtable workshops, facilitating the publication series, and being the primary fundraiser for the Aboriginal Mapping Network. The content and direction and of the Aboriginal Mapping Network is decided upon by First Nation committees and through feedback to the AMN web site7.

The mention not only of the founding organizations, the Gitxsan Nation and the Ahousaht Nation, but also of the Kwakiutl and Haisla Nations as participants in the discussions, and the note that First Nation Committees play a major role in the content and direction for the site all underscore the involvement of pan-Indigenous nations as some of the experts involved in the site.  In addition, the site presents articles and books that give Indigenous perspectives on land and resource use, and discusses land development policy, pointing out that Indigenous voices and perspectives need to be heard by land use policy makers in nation states 8.  The site also addresses globalization and its effects on land resource allocation from an Indigenous nation perspective.   Indigenous people in this organization are presented as experts, with bi-cultural knowledge of the issues involving mapping and land resource allocation. This expertise is reinforced by:

 

Although this organization is based in Canada, the links and use of the terms "First Nations" and "Aboriginal peoples" imply a global pan-indigenous perspective.  The links to other Indigenous peoples using GIS technology are extensive, and links to Indigenous education programs, as well as GIS systems software and hardware, also lend the site credibility.  These links help to present www.nativemaps.org as a site that is part of both the GIS community, and the pan-Indigenous community. 

The site www.nativemaps.org is an example of Indigenous peoples appropriating the web for ends which benefit themselves and their communities, as well as the whole world.   The existence of this site demonstrates an example of technology appropriated by indigenous peoples who do not traditionally have a voice in the media. Here, the speed and reach of CMC functions to present Indigenous people as having expertise in the understanding of GIS systems and land resource allocation from an indigenous perspective.  Power exists in numbers, and the speed and reach has enabled communication to occur between Indigenous peoples around the world, giving them opportunities to present a big picture of a Pan-Indigenous perspective with the chance that it may be heard on the internet.

 

Conclusion

The cybersword cuts both ways for Indigenous peoples, with speed and reach allowing for appropriation of cultural artifacts and customs at an incredible rate, while at the same time providing opportunities for having conversations across cultures and sharing ideas in dialogue about the artifacts, as well as giving Indigenous peoples the ability to work together across great distances and create a collective voice such as that from the Center for World Indigenous Studies. As academics, we need to be careful and sensitive about how we approach these issues, for the way we organize information about Indigenous peoples and the terms we use to describe the interaction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples play a role in constructing our reality.

The speed and reach of the web offers us a new perspective on technology and its advantages to Indigenous peoples around the world. We need to avoid the mistake of applying our own frameworks for the use of technology to Indigenous peoples who have different world views, such as the mistake of James May (1998) who writes an entire chapter in Digital Democracy about how Indigenous peoples in America have a long tradition of libraries, publishing, literacy and education without ever mentioning oral tradition. Instead he calls for the Indigenous communities to use the technologies of mainstream U.S. culture in order to preserve their traditions.

In order for Indigenous peoples to be recognized as experts participating in the new global order, the technology needs to be mediated by Indigenous people and harnessed to serve their needs, not the needs that people operating under the assumptions of a written history believe to exist. In order for global conversations to include both nations and states, global leaders need to be able to hear Indigenous peoples as experts and listen to what they chose to communicate as they appropriate internet technologies and chose to diffuse selected ideas from their cultures through them. In order to do this, we need to be aware that both appropriation and diffusion are a two-way process, and respect the ability of the cybersword to cut both ways.

 

Endnotes

1. The term Indigenous is used throughout the paper to indicate people who belong to First Nations which are located within nation states.  This includes Native Americans, Indigenous peoples of Europe such as the Suomi, and Aboriginal peoples of Australia, as well as many other first peoples around the world.  The use of one over-arching term is chosen to focus on the similarities between these groups.  However, the author acknowledges that it can be problematic to use one term to explain such a diverse set of peoples.  The purpose of the overarching term here is to focus on the commonalities in political situations across these nations and peoples. 

2.  Note that Mitra is discussing people from the county of India, not to be confused with the notion of Indigenous peoples that this the overarching topic of this paper.  In this case, the features of diasporic websites Mitra describes give us an interesting example of how culture can be preserved and diffused via the internet.

3. The author ran searches in google.com in September 2000, May 2002, September 2002, April 2003, and July 2003, consistently finding over 100, 000 sites on the spelling digeridoo from May 2002 onward.

4. This site was downloaded on Sept. 26, 2002.  It is no longer on line.  Instead, Allan Shockley has another site at http://sonoran.com/shockley.  The page, as accessed on July 11, 2003, stated that it was last updated in 1999, so this appears to be an older site.  I have e-mailed Alan Shockley to ask where the www.alanshockley.com site went, and as of July 15, 2003 have not received a response.

5. This quote is from the page in Figure 1.4 http://www.allanshockley.com/in_the_beginning.htm

6. http://www.mills.edu/LIFE/CCM/DIDJERIDU/charter/dreamtime_charter.html

 

7. The Aboriginal Mapping Network, About us. http://www.nativemaps.org/aboutus.html.  Accessed July 15, 2003.

 

8. The term nation states is used by Indigenous peoples to refer to the political bodies of nations such as the Mexico, Canada or United States of America. The term is used to differentiate the political power structure of federal governments as separate from the cultural structure of Indigenous people.

References

Anderson, J.W. (1997). Cybernauts of the Arab Diaspora: Electronic Mediation in Transnational Cultural Identities [ on -line] available http://www.bsos.umd.edu/CSS97/papers/anderson.html.

Bennett, M.J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. in Education for the Intercultural Experience, ed.R.M.Paige. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Chapel, W. B. (1997). Developing international management communication competence, J.B.T.C., 11:3 281-296.

Ess, C. & Sudweeks, F. (1998). Computer-mediated communication or culturally-mediated computing? Challenging the assumptions of the Electronic Global Village. The Electronic Journal of Communication 8:3/4. [available on - line] http://www.cios.org/getfile\Ess_V8N398.

Gajjala,R. (1999). Cyborg diaspora and virtual imagined community: Studying SAWNET1. Cybersociology issue 6. [on-line] available: http://www.cyberdiva.org/erniestuff/sanov.html.

Gajjala, R. (2001). Studying feminist e-spaces: Introducing transnational/postcolonial concerns. In S. Munt (Ed), Technospaces London: Continuum International.

Gunkel , D.J. & Gunkel, A.H. (1997). Virtual geographies: the new worlds of cyberspace. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 14:123-137.

Herberg, P. A.(1994). The innovation matrix: Culture and structure prerequisites to innovation. Wesport CT: Quorum Books.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hongladarom, S. (1998) Global culture, local cultures and the internet: The Thai example. The Electronic Journal of Communication. 8:3/4. [on-line] available: http:www.cios.org/getfile\Hongla_V8N398.

Hongladarom, S. (2001). Global culture, local cultures and the Internet: The Thai example. In Ess, C. & Sudweeks, F. (eds.) Towards an Intercultural Global Village. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp.307-324.

Hudson (1997). The didjeridu - a portal to culture. In Neuenfeldt, K. (ed.). The didjeridu: From Arnhem Land to Internet. Sydney, Australia: John Libbey & company. pp 36.

Kibby, M. D. (1999). The didj and the web: Networks of articulation and appropriation. Convergence. 5 (1, Spring), 59-75.

Maitland, C. (1998). Global diffusion of interactive networks: The impact of culture. The Electronic Journal of Communication. 8:3/4. [on-line] available: http:www.cios.org/getfile\Maitland_V8N398.

May, J. H. (1998). Information technology for indigenous peoples: The North-American experience. In Alexander, C. J. & Pal, L.A.(eds.) Digital Democracy: Policy and Politics in the Wired World. London: Oxford University Press.

Mitra, A. (1997). Diasporic web sites: Ingroup and outgroup discourse. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14:158-181.

Neuenfeldt, K. (ed.) (1997). The didjeridu in the desert: the social relations of an ethnographic object entangled in culture and commerce. The didjeridu: From Arnhem Land to Internet. Sydney, Australia: John Libbey & Company. pp 107-122.

Rey, L. (1998) Multiculturality and communication technologies in Switzerland. The Electronic Journal of Communication. 8:3/4. [on-line] available: http:www.cios.org/getfile\Rey_V8N398.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press

Schulz, D. (1999). Didjeridoo fraud prompts copyright call. The Age [on-line] available: http://www.theage.com.au/news/19991220/A47324-1999Dec19.html.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture. second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sherwood, P. (1997). The didjeridu and alternative lifestylers' reconstruction of social reality. In Neuenfeldt, K. (ed.). The didjeridu: From Arnhem Land to Internet. Sydney, Australia: John Libbey & Company. pp 139.

Wheeler, D.L.(1998). New information technologies in the Islamic world - a view from Kuwait, Communication Research 25:4. Sage.

Yunupingu (1997). Yidaki: A forward. In Neuenfeldt, K. (ed.) The didjeridu: From Arnhem Land to Internet. Sidney, Australia: John Libbey & Company. pp viii.

 

Copyright 2004 Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.

This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced without written permission of the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship,

P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY 12150 USA (phone: 518-887-2443).