 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Context
This work is created within the framework of a conference about ‘New Cultural Citizenship’ within the public domain organised by Interart and Kosmopolis. InterArt claims that creating a new-shared citizenship is a crucial assignment in multicultural societies. How can a citizen with its own cultural identity function within a multiform and international orientated society that’s is changing continuously?
Within this framework we were interested in the idea of this new feeling of solidarity. Why do people long for this shared experience and is it a realistic aspiration? Our performance took place in the ‘stationsgebied’ in Utrecht (the area around Central Station). Before they built this area that includes the central station and a huge shopping mall, it was a working-class area (Wijk C) that was famous for its vivid atmosphere and its community sense. As we can read on the website of the a folkloristic museum in the area (Volksbuurtmuseum Utrecht): “Between 1850 and 1950 the neighbourhood is very active. The inhabitants are working and doing business, but they also make music, play theatre and they sing and dance next to an barrel organ on the street”
Concept
Peter Sloterdijk claims in his study Sphären, that the production of sound is the oldest and most efficient way of creating space. "Prehistoric humans roamed around in relative isolation in the wild. Although they lived in a certain harmony with the natural environment, they needed sounds to demarcate their territory. By murmuring, singing, talking and clapping, the members of the group imposed a distinction between the group and the surrounding environment. The size of the inner world was thus determined by the range of the voice. Each group had its own timbre and unique pitch. These specific properties allowed sound to function as a point of recognition and as a connecting link between the various members of a group" (source: Alex de Jong and Marc Schuilenburg, Mediapolis; popular culture and the city, Rotterdam, 010 Publishers, 2006, p.84)
The tradition of barrel organs playing on the street is a typically Dutch phenomenom. The instrument plays the Dutch tear-jerkers and the old traditional songs. This type of entertainment, was a regular phenomenon, especially in the first decennia of the last century and was considered as a real spectacle. After the gramophone was invented the barrel organ disappeared from the scene. Nowadays a small group of fanatic people are still honouring the instrument. This nostalgic love for the instrument is often associated with a nationalistic body of thought. As can be illustrated by one of the statements of Rita Verdonk (a Dutch right-wing politician): “If you don’t like the barrel organ, you don’t like the Netherlands. We should hear the cheerful tunes of the instrument on the corner of every street.” For some people the barrel organ represents a nostalgic longing for the past, when the society seemed to be more in harmony and the people felt united.
We were curious to what extend the combination of the Dutch barrel organ and the different national anthems would confront the audience. These songs are only communicating to specific target groups. We were wondering if passers-by would recognize the anthems and what their reaction would be? National anthems are normally played during official ceremonies like honouring the winner of an international sport event, welcoming a head of state or national commemorations. By transcribing these anthems to organ music we created a contrast. The music of the barrel organ is often perceived casually and functions like background music for the shopping public, while performing the national anthem indicates a unique moment.
Next to a barrel organ, the owner is usually collecting money. This person shakes his small money box on the rhythm of the music to collect small change (in Dutch there's a special word for this behaviour called: 'mansen'). To commercialise the national anthem is an estranging layer in this performance. What were the motivations of the people to give money? Was identification with a specific nation a reason to donate?
Conclusions/ findings
Most of the people who approached us during the intervention gave money without recognizing the national anthems. They donated in appreciation of the barrel organ. Around twenty people gave money because they recognized the song as ‘their’ national anthem. They looked surprised and sometimes even a bit proud. Most of them were older people, probably immigrants from first or second generation. The people who recognised ‘their’ national anthem, showed interest through eye contact, smiling or pointing. There was one Moroccan who placed his right hand on his chest and stood still as if it was a real ceremony. A British man walked nervously around during the national anthem of the united kingdom and than shouted “God kill the queen”. In a few other cases people camouflaged their behaviour, when they saw that they were being observed.
The Dutch national anthem raised the most questions. People asked about our intensions, made jokes and looked worried or angry. We got the most negative responses on the German anthem. People shaked their heads, gave us angry expressions and made growl remarks like: “ I’m not paying you for playing the German national anthem” The Indonesian, Moroccan and Turkish anthems were the most appreciated because of their content. We didn’t saw anybody who recognised the anthem of the Netherlands Antilles. The Chinese and Indonesian anthems proved to be the most successful songs in commercial terms, they raised the most money. People liked these songs, probably because of their energetic march rhythms and happy melodies.
(‘My Nation’s star’ is a reference to the Turkish national anthem. “O benim milletimin yildizidir, parlayacak; O benimdir, o benim milletimindir ancak.” translated: It is my nation's star, shining forever, It is my nation's star and it is mine.)
PEOPLE, HOME AND LAND
‘My Nation's star’ belongs to the project ‘People, Home and Land’. This project exists of a series of interventions/ works that investigates the role and functioning of different cultural identities within the public domain. This research is based on a desire to unravel processes of connectivity and identification.
Nationalism is based on the idea of equality. In the 19th century this form of self-identification was the driving force behind the independent images of the different nation states in Europe. This process of modernisation was necessary to narrow the gap between the poor oppressed farmers and the new bourgeoisie. Both the farmers and the rich townies could share a feeling of solidarity with the nation. During these processes of emancipation of the nation-state, national expressions like the anthems and flags came into existence.
Nowadays the independent images of the nation states are under pressure due to processes like globalisation, deregulation, deterritorialisation and migration . To meet the increase of cultural diversity, societies are transforming continuously. This (turbulent) dynamics is causing a nostalgic long for old cultural traditions and creates a flourishing nationalism. The notion of cultural identity is often discussed in terms like social cohesion and new citizenship. The functioning of a society is deeply influenced by the self-image of its citizens and the groups they identify with. In a multicultural society, cultural identity determines the social behaviour of its citizens to a great extent. In a multicultural society people are confronted with other cultural identities. This confrontation takes mainly place in the urban environment. In the project ‘People, Home and Land’ we try to measure the effect of the identification with nation states through experiments in the public domain. Through the articulation of the differences or by appropriation of the ‘other’ we create situations in which we examine the relevance of domestic authenticity.
