Riffing on the Magritte painting of his famous (non-)pipe in his series “The Treachery of Images,” I’m centering the book chapter I’m currently writing (reforestation/tropicalization of postwar Okinawa) on the idea of flora as symbol (representation of something other than what it is) in postwar Okinawa. Non-native palm trees planted there to evoke the tropics for tourists is my prime example. Of course Magritte was commenting on his painting as a representation of a pipe, not a pipe itself while I am talking about the palm tree in Okinawa as something even more radically not-what-it-seems-to-be: I argue it is not planted as a palm tree, but as a sign of the tropical, as a pure symbol. Demonstration of this symbolic nature (get it? — symbolic “nature”) of the palm in Okinawa lies in its absurdity. My argument (as I think about now after two glasses of very real — not symbolic — wine) hinges on the idea that the more labor intensive and dangerous and expensive and non-utilitarian palm trees are in Okinawa, the less they exist and are experienced as a material object (tree). They are sensed on the periphery of the consciousness of a tourist only as a vague index of the tropical. People don’t seek shade from them, they don’t eat their fruit (in the case of coconut palms), they don’t climb them. They are not experienced, used, as trees. The fact that tall palms are non-native to Okinawa is for a reason: they topple in typhoons. They don’t belong there. And yet, thousands have been transplanted into the potentially most dangerous areas — along main “tourist-exposed” thoroughfares. Okinawa prefecture spends a LOT of money buttressing these palms and netting the coconuts on coconut palms. It’s ridiculous. Absurd. But, it is calculated that what is expended in material costs and labor is recouped in tourist dollars drawn to the place for its tropical look. That, in a nutshell, is the heart of the chapter. Hibiscus are a part of this story too, although it works a bit differently. That’ll be tomorrow’s topic….
days
comments
tweets
- ä»æ¥ãã¹ã¿ã¼ããã¯ã¹è¡ã£ã¦ãã¾ããããã¤ãã®å¤§å¦ç é¢å ã®åºãè½ã¡çããã ããããã®é°å²æ°ãåºå¡ã«é¡è¦ãããã¦è¦ªåã ãã * 2010/08/31
posts
archives
- September 2010 (1)
- August 2010 (3)
- July 2010 (17)
- June 2010 (21)
- May 2010 (23)
- April 2010 (19)
- March 2010 (12)
- February 2010 (24)
- January 2010 (29)
- December 2009 (8)
- November 2009 (72)
- October 2009 (18)
- September 2009 (9)
academic
champuru
culture
japan
media
okinawa
politics
solipsisms
tech
Meta
Share
Hey Professor,
That is a very interesting summary of your chapter. Is it organized as a series of case analyses (palm tree, hibiscus, etc.)? If so, and all of the cases are plants, that’s pretty cool.
I’m obviously not in a position to offer any substantive thoughts on your chapter (having read a paragraph summary and having no knowledge whatsoever of Okinawa), but here I go:
It appears that the production of “culture” here (culture defined as precisely a system of representation that asserts itself as a mélange detectable only as a trace on the periphery, so the scenario you describe above) is being described as arising at the *expense* of the material. That is, in order for “culture” to emerge, the material surface of a metropolis has to be destroyed by reinscription, but this reinscription is *purely* symbolic. And so we have an economy of pure symbols that no longer needs to articulate a logical or reducible relationship to material attachments. Hence why something as absurd as a palm tree fails to raise any obvious objections to its non-sequitur placement. You sound pretty dead-on.
What do you think, though, about the implicit processes of cultural production at play? Namely, that new and modern forms of cultural production can be achieved by governmental and legislative fiat. The reason I’m interested is that it seems as though the palm tree-as-pure-symbol is *almost* pure, except it has one remaining non-negotiable relationship to the material: policy and law. So this system of symbolic representation is one inaugurated by the force of law, but it also only becomes effective once it conceals that relationship. (And so tourists can be like, “wow, how tropical Okinawa is!” without having to think also “Oh, and aren’t these artificially planted by government policy?” which would be a thought that would intervene and disrupt the “illusion” created in the first instance. I’m putting illusion in quotes because I haven’t really thought through what it means for a symbol to take on the status of an illusion, but I can’t think of another word to use in its stead.) And so there is an awkward tension between the force of law and the renewed efforts of producing a cultural melange which has to be concealed during implementation. That concealing seems like it could be very political.
On an unrelated note, I had bitter melon, stir fried with eggs, last night. It was delicious. Only after many years of eating it did I recently realize that it was the “goya” you talk about frequently.
Well, leave it to you, Kevin, to post the longest and most interesting comment ever on goyablog. I like your formulation here, although I would take some exception at jumping to the conclusion that it comes down to policy and law. In fact, it’s not so clear cut as that in Okinawa given various agencies (public, private) involved in the production of the final product: absurd palm trees/symbols. But I do like the idea of culture/symbol arising at the expense of the material. I’ll have to think about this more. Later. Thanks for the thoughtful comments!