Journal articles on the topic '1844-1926 Criticism and interpretation'

This research was motivated by the establishment of the Steenkolen Maatschappij Parapattan (SMP) company which exploited the natural resources and human resources of the workers which caused a resistance. The purpose of this study is to describe the initial conditions of Teluk Bayur before the resistance in 1926 and to describe the forms of resistance in 1926. The type of research used in this research is historical research using heuristic methods, source criticism, interpretation, and historiography. The results show that prior to the riots, SMP was established in 1912, which was the beginning of the riots that occurred in 1926. Dutch involvement extended to the government. In addition to exploiting coal, contracted workers were also exploited by doing hard labor in coal mines with disproportionate salaries until there was an action against a junior high school company in Teluk Bayur on the night of 6-7 November 1926. Sarekat Islam was considered a forum that initiated resistance so that SI was frozen by the Dutch after the incident.

The Padang Panjang earthquake has become a major part of the Minang people's memory in recent times. Those born after the earthquake often remember their birthday, after the strong shaking that lasted for seven days. This paper is prepared based on historical methods, namely heuristics, criticism, interpretation, and historiography. The earthquake that occurred in January 1926 was based on records of reports of the impact of terrible damage. The tsunami, buildings were destroyed, roads were badly damaged, and rail transportation was damaged, not to mention the human casualties who died and were injured. After the damage caused by the earthquake, the Dutch colonial government intervened to provide assistance to earthquake victims. The government is also working hard to rebuild buildings from the rubble of destruction.

In his work titled ‘Dance Curves: On the Dances of Palucca’ (1926), Wassily Kandisky translates two postures of the German Expressionist choreographer Gret Palucca from photographs into line drawings. The drawings are a study, but they are neither pictorial, nor straightforwardly representational. Staging an encounter between Dance Curves and Hannah Arendt’s investigation into thinking as both an interrupted and interruptive activity, this essay argues for a poetics of appearance as it is constituted by nonconforming acts of critique.Negotiating conflicts that shape a politics of recognition for criticism which deliberately or implicitly refutes utility, I articulate a process of appearance of meaning with differential relation to modernist concerns for interpretation, dissenting from rationalist and objectivist traditions that have dominated theatre and performance criticism since the Enlightenment. What happens when I disavow the drawings from the images, remove them from the source? Perhaps in such a place, we might find critique as a process of deliberately mishandled translation, as an occupation of an idea shifted elsewhere, as a displacement of meaning. Appearance shapes itself around slippages of attention that depart from the work of performance.In this essay, I turn to how these slippages fold outwards from the encounter, to the political nexus between performance and its world. In Arendt, I locate a means through which forms of thinking rendered as criticism constitute a resistant poetics to normative modes of paying attention, operating beyond what Bojana Kunst calls ‘the ready-made possibilities of discourse’ (2015, 13) under neoliberalism, that is, the ‘pre-established models of criticality and reflexivity’ to which art and artistic subjectivity often partake (ibid.)

Gerakan kepanduan pernah meledak di Afdeling Batipuh X dan Priaman di awal abad ke-20. Tulisan ini bertujuan menganalisis hadirnya gerakan kepanduan dengan segala dinamikanya. Gerakan kepanduan ini beberapa kali melakukan gebrakan serta tuntutan Indonesia merdeka yang mereka suarakan langsung dari Padang Panjang. Mulai dari gerakan protes, hingga membentuk Pendidikan Nasional Indonesia, atau dikenal dengan istilah PNI Baru Hatta-Sjahrir. Tulisan ini disusun berdasarkan kaidah metode sejarah –dimulai dengan heuristik, kritik, interpretasi, dan historiografi. Padvinders di Padang Panjang telah dimulai sejak tahun 1924. Gerakan yang hadir di Padang Panjang antara lain International Padvinders Organitatie, El-Hilaal, Hizbul Wathan, dan Kepanduan Indonesia Muslim (KIM). Masing-masing kepanduan lahir dari sekolah-sekolah yang muncul sejak awal abad ke-20, kemudian bermetamorfosis menjadi sebuah gerakan politik. Gerakan politik KIM menjadi PNI Baru, telah mengubah paradigma kepanduan –yang selama ini hanya dianggap sebagai kegiatan ekstrakurikuler sekolah. The scout movement rose to fame in the afdeling of Batipuh X and Priaman in the early 20th century. This paper is designed to analyze the presence of the scout movement and related matters. It had constituted a break with years of colonial era and pushed for an independent Indonesia, which they voiced directly from Padang Panjang. The movements they organized was from the protest movement to the formation of the Pendidikan Nasional Indonesia or more popularly known as the PNI Baru Hatta – Sjahrir. The paper is organized according to the standard historical method rules; heuristics, criticism, interpretation, and historiography. The scout movement, it all started in Padang Panjang in 1924. The International Padvinders Organitatie, the El-Hilaal, the Hizbul Wathan, and the Kepanduan Indonesia Muslim (KIM) were around then. They were originally established in schools at the beginning of the 20th century who transformed into the political movement then. KIM, which turned into a political movement or known as PNI Baru, has changed the scouting paradigm, which so far has only been regarded as the extracurricular school activity.

AbstrakPenelitian ini bertujuan mengungkap kiprah dan pemikiran dari salah seorang ulama terkemuka yang berasal dari Lampung, yaitu H.M. Arief Mahya. Ulama Lampung kelahiran Gedungasin Liwa 6 Juni 1926 ini adalah saksi dari peralihan kolonialisme ke zaman revolusi kemerdekaan, terus berlanjut ke masa pembangunan dan reformasi. Penelitian ini mempergunakan metode sejarah yang terdiri dari heuristik, kritik, interpretasi, dan historiografi. Hasil penelitianmemperlihatkan bahwa H.M. Arief Mahya bukan hanya ulama yang mengembangkan dakwah di kalangan umat, namun juga pendidik yang telah melahirkan generasiLampung berikutnya. Selain itu, ia turut berjuang dalam upaya mempertahankan kemerdekaan. Ia pernah menjadi pimpinan Hizbullah melawan kolonialisme yang hendak merebut kemerdekaan. Selain berjuang secara fisik, ia juga mencurahkan pemikiran melalui media publik, seperti surat kabar. Ciri pokok dari tokoh Lampung ini adalah konsistensinya untuk terus berjuang di jalan yang diyakininya. Betapapun dunia sudah berubah dan terjadi krisis nilai, ia terus istiqomah melanjutkan kiprahnya mendidik umat. AbstractThis study aims to reveal the gait and the thought of one of the leading scholars from Lampung, namely KH M. Arief Mahya. Theologian Lampung who was born at Gedungasin Liwa on June 6, 1926 is the witness of the transition era of colonialism to independence revolution and continues to the development and reformation era. This study uses historical method consists of heuristics, criticism, interpretation, and historiography. The results showed that KH M. Arief Mahya was not only a scholar who developed the message among the people, but also an educator who had bridged to the next generation of Lampung. In addition, he participated in the effort tomaintain the independence struggle. He was once the leader of Hizbullah against colonialism who want to snatch the independence. Besides physically struggling, he also devoted ideas through public media, such as newspapers. The main characteristic of this Lampung figure was the consistency to keep fighting in the way he believed. No matter how the world has changed and there was a crisis of value, he persistently continued to educate people.

This article discusses the history and contribution of the Sri Alam Dunia Grand Mosque in the spread of Islam in the Sipirok area, South Tapanuli. This study uses a qualitative research method with a historical approach. The historical approach has four writing steps, namely: heuristics, criticism, interpretation, and historiography. The Great Mosque of Sri Alam Dunia is a silent witness to the struggle of the Mandailing scholars in expanding the symbols of Islam in the South Tapanuli region. At first, the Sri Alam Dunia Mosque was a small surah that was used as a place to study religion. The central figures who contributed to the process of establishing this mosque were Sheikh Abdul Manan Siregar and the Muslims who live around the mosque. This mosque was built around 1926 AD and was completed in 1933 AD. The results of the research that the authors found were that the Sri Alam Dunia Mosque besides having a long history was also a socio-cultural center for the Sipirok community, both in ancient times and today. With these various functions, making the Sri Alam Dunia Mosque one of the icons of pride for Muslims in Sipirok.

This study aims to analyze the kirprah of the Sekar Rukun Association during the National Movement (1919-1931) which includes the formation, form of struggle, and the process of merging with the Young Indonesia organization. The research method used is the historical method which consists of heuristic, source criticism, interpretation, and historiography stages. Through this research, it can be seen that, first, the Sekar Rukun Association was formed by Sundanese figures who attended school in Batavia, such as Doni Ismail, Iki Adiwidjaja, Djuwariah, Hilman, Moh. Sapii, Mangkudiguna, Soetisna Sendjaja and Iwa Kusumasumantri before finally Dr. Husein Djajadiningrat was involved in the Sekar Rukun Association. Second, the form of struggle for the Sekar Rukun Association is by working with youth organizations similar to that during the National Movement such as Jong Java, Jong Ambon, Jong Sumatranen Bond, Jong Islamieten Bond, Jong Celebes, Jong Bataks and so on. One form of the struggle of the Sekar Rukun Association together with other youth organizations was to hold Youth Congresses I and II in 1926 and 1928. The 2nd Youth Congress in 1928 was known as the Youth Pledge event. Third, as a form of unity and integrity, the Sekar Rukun Association merged with the other youth organizations mentioned above to form an organization called Young Indonesia in 1931.

The present paper deals with a short contribution which E.D. Polivanov published in 1925 in the scientific journal of the Central Asia State University during his stay and work at the University of Taškent. Polivanov’s text presents a phonological analysis of the Georgian consonant system and aims at making the transcription system devised by the academician N.Ja. Marr for the rendering of Georgian sounds comparable with the better known and more useful alphabet of the International Phonetic Association. In addition to the synchronic description and classification of Georgian con-sonants, in which, contrary to the customary interpretation, weak aspiration of voiceless plosives is claimed, Polivanov offers an interesting diachronic ex-planation of the defective postvelar (uvular) series, which in contemporary standard Georgian features only the voiceless ejective member; his reconstruction of the former system is based on typological assumptions about the different behaviour of voiced and voiceless obstruents with respect to lenition (spirantisation). Some years later, the Georgian linguist G.S. Axvlediani provided ar-guments, based on internal reconstruction, which confirmed and further developed Polivanov’s hypothesis. Although he had reviewed Polivanov’s contribution for a Georgian journal in 1926, Axvlediani did not mention it in his later work, probably because Polivanov in the meanwhile had become persona non grata in Soviet lin-guistics for his open criticism of Marr’s linguistic theory.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kondisi pendidikan di Enrekang sebelum tahun 1950, sistem pendidikan sekolah rakyat dan perkembangan sekolah rakyat di Enrekang tahun 1950-1959. Sistem dan perkembangan sekolah rakyat dalam penelitian ini berfokus pada kebijakan pemerintah, partisipasi masyarakat, guru sekolah rakyat, minat murid, kondisi dan peralatan sekolah. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian Kualitatif, dengan menggunakan metode sejarah melalui tahapan: heuristik (pengumpulan sumber), kritik sumber, interpretasi, dan historiografi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sekolah rakyat sudah ada pada masa pemerintahan Belanda tahun 1905 sedangkan di Enrekang tahun 1926 namun nama Volkschool. Nama sekolah Rakyat dipakai setelah Indonesia merdeka. Kondisi Sekolah rakyat di Enrekang sebelum tahun 1950 masih dalam keadaan terbelakang namun setelah lima tahun merdeka keadaan sudah semakin membaik. Sistem pendidikan sekolah rakyat setelah kemerdekaan terutama dalam kurikulum yang awalnya hanya belajar membaca, menulis dan berhitung kini semakin bertambah.seperti contohnya belajar sejarah. Sekolah rakyat di Enrekang mengalami perkembangan di lihat dari semakin banyaknya sekolah yang berubah dari SR 3 atau 4 menjadi 6 tahun karena jumlah siswa bertambah. Perkembangan tersebut karena adanya peran aktif masyarakat dan pemerintah yang turut andil dalam kemajuan pendidikan.Kata Kunci: Sekolah rakyat dan Enrekang.AbstractThis study aims to determine the condition of education in Enrekang before 1950, the education system of public schools and the development of community schools in Enrekang in 1950-1959. The system and development of community schools in this study focused on government policy, community participation, community school teachers, student interests, school conditions and equipment. This type of research is a qualitative study, using the historical method through stages: heuristics (source collection), source criticism, interpretation, and historiography. The results showed that the people's school had existed during the Dutch administration in 1905 while in Enrekang in 1926 the name was Volkschool. The name People's school was used after Indonesian independence. The condition of people's schools in Enrekang before 1950 was still underdeveloped, but after five years of independence the situation had improved. The education system of the people's schools after independence, especially in the curriculum which initially only learned to read, write and count is now increasing. For example studying history. Public schools in Enrekang are experiencing growth in view of the increasing number of schools that change from SR 3 or 4 to 6 years as the number of students increases. This development was due to the active role of the community and the government that contributed to the progress of education.Keywords: Community school and Enrekang

Abstract: The author addresses the issue of Nicholai Velimirovich’s attitude towards fascism, responding to the criticism of Bishop Nicholai as a sympathizer of Adolph Hitler’s policy and the interpretation of Velimirovich’s thoughts that enabled such constructions. In the present article, special attention is paid to the public addresses of Nicholai Velimirovich during the period of the rise of the Nazi state, i.e. from 1935 to 1941. The main topic of this article is to deconstruct the great myth of Bishop Nicholai’s critics, which reads: Saint Bishop Nicholai is a fascist because he received a decoration from Hitler in 1934, and in 1935 he gave a lecture at Kolarac called “Nationalism of Saint Sava” where he praised Hitler as few people did during the life of the Reich leader, comparing him with Saint Sava, “whereby Hitler turned out to be bigger than Saint Sava.” This accusation comes from the critics of Bishop Nicholai from Peščanik, whose pamphlets are adopted and passed on by a part of the Serbian intelligentsia in which there are historians, linguists, political scientists, and even theologians. However, such constructions are possible only if we ignore the legacy of Bishop Nicholai and his thought. For instance, it is interesting that in the same year, namely in 1926, Hitler and Velimirovich published two completely opposite works — Hitler the second part of his Mein Kampf in which he revealed his racial theory to the world, and Nicholai a short article entitled “The Problem of Races,” in which he explained that the problem of race can not solve anthropologists, nor historians and psychologists, but only Christianity, urging Serbian youth not to make a value difference between races, but to consider whether a black earthen pot with honey or a white porcelain pot with vinegar is better. In his later works, there are much more references to the issues of racism, nationalism, chauvinism, etc., where he clearly holds moderated and balanced Christian worldview.

After the second world war in 1960s, there were two currents of thoughts to understand culture, symbolic and postcolonial. The symbolic school included Clifford Geertz (1926-2006), while the postcolonial school included scholars like Talal Asad and Edward Said. Both of these attempted to understand how colonialism shaped multiple societies. They also filled a vacuum in anthropology by raising questions on ‘inequality’ and ‘discrimination’ by the researcher. The data was biased to those who funded the research and critical questions were not usually asked. In this light, the discipline witnessed the birth of ‘Action Anthropology’. Postmodernists like Geertz and Bourdieu criticised the notion of a ‘researcher as a detached scientist’, and ‘objectivity’ which were emphasised in the Functional Anthropology (Durkheim). In this article, light is drawn to Geertz’ style of writing about cultures through ‘ethnographies of experiences.’ It is an affective turn that focuses on cultural pluralism and respecting differences. The article attempts to highlight on Geertz’ significant contributions in writings like ‘Religion in Java’ and ‘Interpretation of cultures.’

This article considers an important source on the evolution of Russian historical science. These are four letters written in 1926–1928 by the leading historian I.M. Grevs (1860–1941) to his colleague S.I. Archangelsky (1882–1958), a future corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Unfortunately, the response letters of S.I. Arkhangelsky have been lost. The letters under study focus on two main problems. I.M. Grevs unsuccessfully helped S.I. Arkhangelsky to publish the historical source he had translated – “The Edict on Maximum Prices” of Emperor Diocletian. In this connection, the problems of scientific formation and ideas of S.I. Arkhangelsky, the difficulties faced by the USSR historians of the 1920s who wanted to publish their scientific works, and the scholarly activity of I.M. Grevs in the Soviet period are considered. S.I. Arkhangelsky and I.M. Grevs adhered to different directions in interpreting world economic history – Eduard Meyer and Karl Bücher, respectively. S.I. Arkhangelsky refused to criticize I.M. Grevs, the reasons for which are discussed here. Another chief point of interest in the letters is the problems of local history studies. Based on the analysis of the exchange of views, new interpretations of the facts of I.M. Grevs’s biography – his travels along the Volga River, meetings with the figures of the Nizhny Novgorod Scientific Society for the Study of Local History – are offered. These and other issues are presented in the biographical context of communication ties between both the historians. The article is accompanied by the full texts of the letters and commentaries

In a study on the material of Ukrainian, in particular, Kharkiv, periodicals, an attempt was made to reconstruct the play by N. Erdman “The Mandate”. This is one of the most popular stagings in the national theater repertoire of the 1925/1926 season. The scientific novelty of the work is due to the fact that the problems of reception and interpretation of “The Mandate” play by the Ukrainian theater critics of the 1920s have not yet become the subject of a special scientific study. The research methodology consists of applying an integrated approach, in particular, using historical, cultural, typological, and intertextual methods for the analysis. This approach allowed us to get an idea of such components of the staging as the director’s, actors’ activities, and the audience’s reaction. In addition, an attempt was made to classify domestic theater criticism of the 1920s. It is shown that the director’s theater influenced the writers. However, despite the commitment of critics to a particular aesthetic system, the sociological trend dominated in their comments, which often led to simplified perception and interpretation. It has been established that the emergence of the Ukrainian stage history of “The Mandate” is primarily due to the repertoire crisis of domestic theaters, the lack of plays, with the exception of M. Kulish’s works, that would reflect contemporary life, reproduced the Soviet life on a scene. Filling the repertoire lacunae with plays that were successful on the stages of the capital's theaters, the newly formed groups, in particular, the Chervonozavodskyi Theater in Kharkiv, tried to acknowledge their professionalism. The principles and limits of the director’s “interference” in the art world of the play did not always correspond to the plan of the playwright and were due to the desire to establish a link between art and life. In general, the theatrical season of 1925/1926, in terms of saturation with theatrical premieres, affirmed the beginning of a new era in the Ukrainian theater and, as a result, in the Ukrainian theater criticism.

In recent years there has been an intense profusion of qualitative research in education in Brazil, with a growing emphasis on the use of ethnography; however, there has also been an intense debate about the uses and possibilities of ethnography in education, including criticism of how It has been incorporated into educational research. In this article, in a broad dialogue between anthropology and education, I seek to elucidate some questions about the use of ethnography, but starting from a particular conception of ethnography, developed in what is called interpretative anthropology, based mainly on the work of the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926 -2006).ResumoEm período recente tem havido uma intensa profusão de pesquisas qualitativas em educação no Brasil, ganhando um destaque crescente o uso da etnografia, entretanto, tem ocorrido também um intenso debate sobre os usos e possibilidades da etnografia em educação, incluindo críticas à forma como ela tem sido incorporada na pesquisa educacional. Neste artigo, num amplo diálogo entre antropologia e educação, busco elucidar algumas questões sobre o uso da etnografia, porém partindo de uma concepção particular de etnografia, desenvolvida no que se denomina de antropologia interpretativa, assentada principalmente na obra do antropólogo americano Clifford Geertz (1926-2006).ResumenEn un período reciente ha habido una intensa profusión de investigaciones cualitativas en educación en Brasil, ganando un destaque creciente el uso de la etnografía, sin embargo, ha ocurrido también un intenso debate sobre los usos y posibilidades de la etnografía en educación, incluyendo críticas a la forma como se ha incorporado en la investigación educativa. En este artículo, en un amplio diálogo entre antropología y educación, busco elucidar algunas cuestiones sobre el uso de la etnografía, pero partiendo de una concepción particular de etnografía, desarrollada en lo que se denomina antropología interpretativa, asentada principalmente en la obra del antropólogo americano Clifford Geertz (1926 -2006).Palavras-chave: Etnografia, Antropologia da educação, Pesquisa educacional.Keywords: Ethnography, Anthropology of education, Educational research.Palabras Claves: Etnografía, Antropología de la educación, Investigación educativa.ReferencesANDRÉ, Marli E.D.A. Etnografia da prática escolar. Campinas: Papirus, 1995.ALEXANDER, Jeffrey; SMITH, Philipe. Introduction: the rise and fall and rise of Clifford Geertz. In: ALEXANDER, Jeffrey; NORTON, Matthew (Orgs.). Interpreting Clifford Geertz: cultural investigation in the social sciences, New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2011, p. 1-8.BARTH, Fredrik. O guru, o iniciador e outras variações antropológicas. Rio de Janeiro: Contra Capa Livraria, 2000.BOURDIEU, Pierre; PASSERON, Jean-Claude. A Reprodução. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2008.BOURDIEU, Pierre; PASSERON, Jean-Claude. Os Herdeiros. Florianópolis: EDUFSC, 2014.DAUSTER, Tânia. An interdisciplinary experience in anthropology and education: memory, academic project and political background. Vibrant, v. 12, n. 2, p. 451-496, 2015.DIAS SILVA, Graziela M. Sociologia da Sociologia da Educação: caminhos e desafios de uma Policy Science no Brasil (1920-1979). Bragança Paulista: Edusf, 2002.FONSECA, Claudia. Quando cada caso NÃO é um caso: pesquisa etnográfica e educação. Revista Brasileira de Educação, Rio de Janeiro, ANPEd, n. 10, p. 58-78, jan./abr. 1999.FORQUIN, Jean-Claude. Escola e cultura. Porto Alegre, Artes Médicas, 1993.GEERTZ, Clifford. A interpretação das culturas. Rio de Janeiro: LTC 1989.GEERTZ, Clifford. Atrás dos Fatos: dois países, quatro décadas, um antropólogo. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2012.GEERTZ, Clifford. Nova luz sobre a antropologia. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 2001.GEERTZ, Clifford. O saber local: novos ensaios em antropologia interpretativa. Petrópolis, Vozes,1997.GEERTZ, Clifford. Obras e vidas: o antropólogo como autor. Rio de Janeiro, Editora da UFRJ, 2005.GODELIER, Maurice. O Enigma do Dom. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 2001.GOMES, Ana M. R.; GOMES, Nilma L. Anthropology and Education in Brazil: Possible Pathways. In: ANDERSON-LEVITT (Ed.) Anthropologies of Education: A Global Guide to Ethnographic Studies of Learning and Schooling. New York: Berghahn Books, 2011, p. 111-130.GUSMÃO, Neusa. Entrelugares: antropologia e educação no Brasil. Educação, v. 34, n. 1, p. 29-46, 2009.MAGGIE, Yvonne; PRADO, Ana. O que muda e o que permanece o mesmo nas escolas cariocas: culturas de gestão e as representações dos estudantes. In: GUEDES, Simone Lahud; CIPINIUK, Tatiana (Orgs.) Abordagens etnográficas sobre educação: adentrando os muros das escolas. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Alternativa, 2014, p. 69-81.NAGLE, Jorge. Educação e sociedade na Primeira República. São Paulo: EDUSP, 1988.OLIVEIRA, Amurabi. O Lugar da Antropologia na Formação Docente: um olhar a partir das Escolas Normais, Pro-Posições, v. 24, n. 2, p. 27-40, 2013a.OLIVEIRA, Amurabi. Por que etnografia no sentido estrito e não estudos do tipo etnográfico em educação? Revista FAEEBA, v. 22, n. 40, p. 69-82, 2013b.OLIVEIRA, Amurabi; ALMIRANTE, Kleverton Arthur. Aprendendo com o Axé: processos educativos no terreiro e o que as crianças pensam sobre ele e a escola. Revista Ilha, v. 16, n. 1, p. 139-174, 2014.OLIVEIRA, Amurabi; BOIN, Felipe; BÚRIGO, Beatriz. A Antropologia, os Antropólogos e a Educação no Brasil. Revista Anthropológicas, v. 27, n. 1, p. 21-44, 2016.OLIVEIRA, Roberto Cardoso de. O trabalho do antropólogo. São Paulo, Editora UNESP, 2006.TOSTA, Sandra de F. P. Cruzando Fronteiras - entre a Antropologia e a Educação no Brasil e na Argentina. Pró-Posições, v. 24, n. 2, p. 95-107, 2013.WOORTMANN, Klaas. A etnologia (quase) esquecida de Bourdieu, ou o que fazer com heresias. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 19, n. 5, p. 129-137, 2004.

Swine semantics erupted into a linguistic battle between the two U.S. presidential candidates in the 2008 campaign over a lesser-known colloquialism “lipstick on a pig” reference in a speech by then Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. This resulted in the Republicans sparring with the Democrats over the identification of the “swine” in question, claiming “sexism” and demanding an apology on behalf of then Governor Sarah Palin, the first female Republican vice presidential candidate. The Republican Party, fearful of being criticised for its own sexist and racist views (Kuhn par. 1), seized the opportunity to attack the Democrats with a proactive media campaign that made the lipstick comment a lead story in the media during a critical time less than two months before the election, derailing more serious campaign issues and focusing attention on Palin, who had just made her national political debut and whose level of experience was widely debated. Leskovec, Backstrom, and Kleinberg conducted a meme-tracking study for analysing news-cycle phrases in approximately 90 million stories from 1.6 million online sites spanning mainstream news to blogs during the final three months of the U.S. presidential election (1). They discovered that “lipstick on a pig” was “stickier” than other phrases and received “unexpectedly high popularity” (4). A simple Google search of “lipstick on a pig” resulted in 244,000 results, with more than half originating in 2008. Obama’s “Lipstick on a Pig” Reference During the final rounds of the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s words at a widely televised campaign stop in Lebanon, Virginia, on 9 September, sparked a linguistic debate between the two major American political parties 56 days before Election Day. Obama attempted to debunk McCain’s strategy about change in the following statement:John McCain says he’s about change, too. [...] And so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics [...] That’s not change. That’s just calling some—the same thing, something different. But you know [...] you can put [...] lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig (“Obama’s Take”).A reporter from The New York Times commented that it was clear to the audience that Obama’s “lipstick” phrase was a direct reference to McCain’s policies (Zeleny par. 5). Known as a well-educated, articulate speaker, perhaps one considered too professorial for mainstream America, Obama attempted to inject more folksy language and humour into his dialogue with the public. However, the Republicans interpreted the metaphor quite differently. Republicans Claim “Sexism” from a “Male Chauvinist Pig” The Republican contender John McCain and his entourage immediately took offence, claiming that the “pig” in question was a sexist comment referring to Palin, who was introduced on 29 August as the first female vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket (“VP Pick”). A Republican National Committee spokeswoman quickly told the media, “Sarah Palin’s maverick record of reform doesn’t need any ‘dressing up,’ but the Obama campaign’s condescending commentary deserves some dressing down” (Chozick par. 8). McCain’s camp formed the Palin Truth Squad with 54 Republican women, primarily lawyers and politicians, on the same day as the metaphor was used, to counter negative media and Internet commentary about Palin (Harper A13). Almost immediately after Obama’s “lipstick” comment, McCain’s camp conducted a conference call with journalists and former Massachusetts Governor Jane Swift, a Republican and chair of the Palin Truth Squad, who stated the lipstick comment referred to Palin, “the only one of the four—the presidential and vice presidential candidates—who wears lipstick” (Kornblut and Shear par. 12). Another member of the Squad, Thelma Drake, then a Republican Representative from Virginia, said that “it’s hard for Barack Obama to paint himself as the agent of change if he harbors the same mindset that Palin and millions of women just like her, have been fighting against their whole lives” (Applegate par. 8). Swift and others also claimed Obama was referring to Palin since she had herself used a lipstick metaphor during her Republican National Convention speech, 3 Sepember: “I love those hockey moms. You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick” (“Palin’s Speech” par. 26). The Republicans also created an anti-Obama Web ad with the theme, “Ready to Lead? No. Ready to Smear? Yes,“ (Weisman and Slevin A01) with a compilation of video clips of Palin’s “lipstick” joke, followed by the latter part of Obama's “lipstick” speech, and CBS News anchorwoman, Katie Couric, talking about “sexism” in politics, that latter of which referred to an older clip referring to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House. Both clips on Obama and Couric were taken out of context. CBS retaliated and released a statement that the network “does not endorse any candidate” and that “any use of CBS personnel in political advertising that suggests the contrary is misleading” (Silva par. 8). YouTube pulled the Republican Web ads stating that the cause was “due to a copyright claim” (Silva par. 7). Another porcine phrase became linked to Obama—“male chauvinist pig”—an expression that evolved as an outgrowth of the feminist movement in the 1960s and first appeared with the third word, “pig,” in the media in 1970 (Mansbridge and Flaster 261). BlogHer, a blog for women, posted “Liberal Chauvinist Pigs,” on the same day as Obama's speech, asking: “Does the expression male chauvinist pig come to mind?” (Leary par. 5) Other conservative blogs also reflected on this question, painting Obama as a male chauvinist pig, and chastising both the liberal media and the Democrats for questioning Palin’s credentials as a viable vice presidential candidate. Obama “Sexist Pig Gear” protest tee-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers were sold online by Zazzle.com. Democratic Response to “Controversy” During a campaign stop in Norfolk, Virginia, the day after his “lipstick” comment, Obama called the Republican backlash the “latest made-up controversy by the John McCain campaign” and appealed for a return to more serious topics with “enough” of “foolish diversions” (“Obama Hits”). He stated that the Republicans “seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know it’s catnip for the news media” (“Obama Hits”). Obama also referred to the situation as the “silly season of politics” in media interviews (James par. 8). Obama’s spokespeople rallied claiming that McCain played the “gender card about the use of a common analogy” (Kornblut and Shear par. 6). An Obama campaign spokesman distributed to the media copies of articles from a Chicago Tribune story in 2007 in which McCain applied the lipstick analogy about the healthcare strategy of Hillary Clinton, a previous female Democratic presidential contender (Chozick 11). Another Obama spokeswoman said that the porcine expression “was older than my grandfather’s grandfather,” (Zimmer par. 1) which also inspired the media and linguists to further investigate this claim. Evolution of “Lipstick on a Pig” This particular colloquial use of a “pig” evolved from a long history of porcine expressions in American politics. American political discourse has been rich with cultural references to porcine idioms with negative connotations. Pork barrels were common 19th-century household items used to store salt pork, and some plantation owners doled out the large barrels as rewards to slaves who then had to compete with each other to grab a portion (Maxey 693). In post-Civil War America, “pork barrel” became a political term for legislative bills “loaded with special projects for Members of Congress to distribute to their constituents back home as an act of largesse, courtesy of the federal taxpayer” (“Pork Barrel Legislation”). Today, “pork barrel” is widely used in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and other countries (“Definition Pork Barrel”) to refer to “government projects or appropriations yielding rich patronage benefits” (“Pork Barrel”). Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh coined the term, “porkulus,” as another expression for “pork barrel” by merging the words “pork and “stimulus,” while discussing President Obama’s economic stimulus package in January 2009 (Kuntz par. 1). Ben Zimmer, an American lexicologist, explained that “many porcine proverbs describe vain attempts at converting something from ugly to pretty, or from useless to useful” (par. 2). Zimmer and other writers investigated the heritage of “lipstick on a pig” over the past 500 years from “you can't make a silk purse from a sow’s ear,” “a hog in armour is still a hog,” and “a hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog.” Zimmer connected the dots between the words “lipstick,” a 19th-century invention, and “pig” to a Los Angeles Times editor in 1926 who wrote: “Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks” (par. 3). American Politicians Who Have Smeared “Lipstick on a Pig” Which American politicians had used “lipstick on a pig” before Obama? Both Democrats and Republicans have coloured their speech with this colloquialism to refer to specific issues, not specific people. In 2008, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential hopeful John Edwards, used the porcine expression about McCain’s healthcare proposals at a Democratic campaign event and House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican, about weak Republican fundraising efforts during the same month (Covington and Curry par. 7-8). McCain ironically used the term twice to criticise Hillary Clinton’s healthcare proposals as “lipstick on a pig,” while they were both campaigning in 2007 (Covington and Curry par. 6). His statement received limited attention at the time. During a telephone interview in 2007, Obama also had used the pig analogy when referring to an “impossible assignment” George W. Bush gave to General Petraeus, who was then serving as the Multinational Forces Iraq Commander (Tapper par. 15). In 2004, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney applied a regional slant: “As we like to say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but at the end of the day it's still a pig,” about the national defence record of John Kerry, then a Democratic presidential nominee (Covington and Curry par. 4). A few months earlier that year, John Edwards, Democratic vice presidential candidate, scolded the Bush administration for putting “lipstick on a pig” on “lackluster job-creation numbers” (Covington and Curry par. 3). Representative Charles Rangel, a Democrat, identified the “pig” as a tax bill the same year (Siegel par. 15-16). In 1992, the late Governor of Texas, Ann Richards, a Democrat, who was known for colourful phrases, gave the pig a name when she said: “You can put lipstick on a hog and call it Monique, but it is still a pig,” referring to the Republican administration for deploying warships to protect oil tankers in the Middle East, effectively subsidizing foreign oil (Zimmer par. 4). A year earlier, when she introduced her first budget for Texas, she said: “This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess” (Zimmer par. 4). The earliest reputed recorded use of an American politician using the phrase was Texas Democrat Jim Hightower, who applied it to depict the reorganisation of Ronald Reagan's Cabinet in 1986 (Macintyre 16). Time magazine reporters (Covington and Curry par. 2) and Zimmer (par. 3) claimed that a San Francisco radio personality, Ron Lyons, was one of the earliest quoted in print with “lipstick on a pig” about renovation plans for a local park in November 1985 in the Washington Post. Author of the Double-Tongued Dictionary, Grant Barrett, uncovered a 1980 article from a small Washington state newspaper as the earliest written record with an article that stated: “You can clean up a pig, put a ribbon on it’s [sic] tail, spray it with perfume, but it is still a pig” (Guzman par. 7). A book on communication also adopted the pig metaphor in its title in 2006, Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game, by Torie Clarke, who previously served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under Donald Rumsfield during the early years of the G.W. Bush Administration. Media Commentary According to The New York Times (Leibovich and Barrett), “lipstick on a pig” was one of the most popular political buzzwords and phrases of 2008, along with others directly referring to Palin, “Caribou Barbie” and “Hockey Mom,” as well as “Maverick,” a popular term used by both McCain and Palin. Many journalists played on the metaphor to express disdain for negative political campaigns. A Wall Street Journal article asked: “What's the difference between a more hopeful kind of politics and old-fashioned attacks? Lipstick” (Chozick par. 1). International media also covered the Obama-McCain lipstick wars. The Economist, for example, wrote that the “descent of American politics into pig wrestling has dismayed America’s best friends abroad” (“Endless Culture War” par. 6). Bloggers claimed that Obama’s “lipstick” speech was influenced by copy and imagery from two leading American cartoonists. The Free Republic, self-acclaimed to be “the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism” (Freerepublic.com), claimed that Obama plagiarized almost verbatim the language leading into the “pig” comment from a Tom Toles cartoon that ran in the Washington Post on 5 Sepember (see fig. 1).Fig. 1. Toles, Tom. Cartoon. Washington Post. 5 Sep. 2008. 30 July 2010 Another cartoon by R. J. Matson appeared in the St. Louis Post Dispatch (see fig. 2) four days before Obama’s speech that depicted Palin not just as a pig wearing lipstick, but as one using pork barrel funding. The cartoon’s caption provides an interpretation of Palin's lipstick analogy: “Question: What’s the Difference Between a Hockey Mom Reformer and a Business-As-Usual Pork Barrel-Spending Politician? Answer: Lipstick.” Newsbusters.org blogger stated: “It’s not too far-fetched to say Team Obama is cribbing his stump speech laugh lines from the liberal funnies” (Shepherd par. 3). Fig 2. Matson, R. J. Cartoon. St. Louis Post Dispatch. 5 Sep. 2008. 30 July 2010 . A porcine American character known for heavy makeup and a starring role as one of the Muppets created by puppeteer Jim Henson in the 1970s, Miss Piggy still remains an American icon. She commented on the situation during an interview on the set of “Today,” an American television program. When the interviewer asked, “Were you surprised by all the hubbub this election season over your lipstick practices?,” Miss Piggy’s response was “Moi will not dignify that with a response” (Raphael par. 6-7). Concluding Comments The 2008 U.S. presidential election presented new players in the arena: the first African-American in a leading party and the first female Republican. During a major election, words used by candidates are widely scrutinised and, in this case, the “lipstick on a pig” phrase was misconstrued by the opposing party, known for conservative values, that latched onto the opportunity to level a charge of sexism against the more liberal party. Vocabulary about gender, like language about race, can become a “minefield” (Givhan M01). With today’s 24/7 news cycle and the blogosphere, the perceived significance of a political comment, whether innocent or not, is magnified through repeated analysis and commentary. The meme-tracking study by Leskovec, Backstrom, and Kleinberg observed that 2.5 hours was the typical time lag between stories originating in mainstream media and reaching the blogosphere (8); whereas only 3.5 percent of the stories began in blogs and later permeated into traditional media (9). An English author of the history of clichés and language, Julia Cresswell, stated that the “lipstick” term “seems to be another candidate for clichéhood” (61). Although usage of clichés can prove to cause complications as in the case of Obama’s lipstick reference, Obama was able to diffuse the Republican backlash quickly and make a plea to return to serious issues affecting voters. David Greenberg analysed Obama’s presidential win and explained: And although other factors, especially the tanking economy, obviously contributed more directly to his November victory, it would be a mistake to overlook the importance of his skill at mastering the politics of negative attacks. When Obama went negative against others, he carefully singled out aspects of his opponents’ characters that, he argued, American politics itself had to transcend; he associated his foes with the worst of the old politics and himself with the best of the new. When others fired at him, in contrast, he was almost always able to turn the criticisms back upon them—through feigned outrage, among other tactics—as perpetuating those selfsame blights on our politics (70). References Applegate, Aaron. “Rep. Drake Criticizes Obama for ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Remark.” Virginia Pilot 10 Sep. 2008. 28 Jul. 2010. Chozick, Amy. “Obama Puts Different Twist on Lipstick.” Wall Street Journal 9 Sep. 2008. 30 Jul. 2010. Covington, Marti, and Maya Curry. “A Brief History of: ‘Putting Lipstick on a Pig.’” Time 11 Sep. 2008. 17 May 2010. Cresswell, Julia. “Let’s Hear it for the Cliché.” British Journalism Review 19.57 (2008): 57-61. “Endless Culture War.” The Economist 4 Oct. 2008: ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. 30 Jul. 2010. “Definition Pork Barrel.” Webster’s Online Dictionary. 30 Jul. 2010. freerepublic.com. “Welcome to Free Republic.” Free Republic 2009. 30 Jul. 2010. Givhan, Robin. “On the Subject of Race, Words Get in the Way.” Washington Post 20 Jan. 2008: M01. Greenberg, David. “Accentuating the Negative.” Dissent 56.2 (2009): 70-75. Guzman, Monica. “‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Finds Origin in Tiny State Newspaper.” Seattlepi.com 10 Sep. 2008. 17 May 2010. Harper, Jennifer. “Obama Comment Offends GOP Women; ‘Palin Truth Squad’ Sent Out to Counter ‘Lipstick on a Pig’ Remark.” Washington Times 10 Sep. 2008: A13. Huston, Warner Todd. “Did Obama Steal His Lip Stick on a Pig From a Political Cartoon?” Newsbusters.org 10 Sep. 2008. 15 Jul. 2010 . James, Frank. “Barack Obama on David Letterman.” Chicago Tribune 11 Sep. 2008. 15 Jul. 2010 http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/barack_obama_on_david_letterma.html>. Kornblut, Anne E., and Michael D. Shear. “McCain Camp Sees an Insult in a Saying.” Washington Post 10 Sep. 2008. 30 Jul. 2010 AR2008090903531.html>. Kuhn, David P. “GOP Fears Charges of Racism, Sexism.” Politico.com 23 Feb. 2008. 4 Oct. 2010. Kuntz, Tom. “Porkulus.” NYTimes.com 8 Feb. 2009. 30 Jul. 2010. Leary, Anne. “Liberal Chauvinist Pigs.” BlogHer 9 Sep. 2008. 2 Oct. 2010. Leibovich, Mark, and Grant Barrett. “The Buzzwords of 2008.” New York Times 21 Dec. 2008. 29 Jul. 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/ref/weekinreview/buzzwords2008.html>. Leskovec, Jure, Lars Backstrom, and Jon Kleinberg. “Meme-tracking and the Dynamics of the News Cycle.” ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Paris, 28 Jun. 2009. 30 Jul. 2010 . Macintyre, Ben. “US Politics is Littered with Dawgs, Crawdaddys and Pigs in Lipstick.” The Times [London] 27 Sep. 2008: 16. Mansbridge, Jane, and Katherine Flaster. “Male Chauvinist, Feminist, Sexist, and Sexual Harassment: Different Trajectories in Feminist Linguistic Innovation.” American Speech 80.3 (Fall 2005): 256-279. Maxey, Chester Collins. “A Little History of Pork.” National Municipal Review, Volume VIII. Concord: Rumford Press, 1919. Google Books. 30 Jul. 2010. “Obama Hits Back Against McCain Campaign.” MSNBC 10 Sep. 2008. Televised Speech. 18 May 2010. “Obama’s Take on McCain's Version of Change.” CNN 9 Sep. 2009. YouTube.com. 17 May 2010. “Palin’s Speech at the Republican National Convention.” New York Times 3 Sep. 2008. 17 May 2010. “Pork Barrel.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2010. 30 Jul. 2010. “Pork Barrel Legislation.” C-SPAN Congressional Glossary. c-span.org. 17 May 2010. Raphael, Rina. “Miss Piggy: Obama Should Make Poodle First Pet” Today 13 Nov. 2008. MSNBC.com. 29 Jul. 2010. Shepherd, Ken. “Palin Shown As Lipsticked Pig in Cartoon Days Before Obama Remark.” NewsBusters.org 11 Sep. 2008. 30 Jul. 2010 . Siegel, Robert. “Putting Lipstick on a Pig.” National Public Radio 10 Sep. 2008. 16 Jul. 2010. Silva, Mark. “Katie Couric's 'Lipstick' Rescue: CBS.” Chicago Tribune 11 Sep. 2008. 30 Jul. 2010. Tapper, Jack. “A Piggish Debate: Power, Pop, and Probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper.” ABC News 9 Sep. 2008. 29 Jul. 2010. “VP Pick Palin Makes Appeal to Women Voters.” NBC News, msnbc.com, and Associated Press 28 Aug. 2008. 30 Jul. 2010. Weisman, Jonathan, and Peter Slevin. “McCain Camp Hits Obama on More Than One Front.” Washington Post 11 Sep. 2008: A04. Zeleny, Jeff. “Feeling a Challenge, Obama Sharpens His Silver Tongue.” New York Times 10 Sep. 2008. 27 Jul. 2010. Zimmer, Ben. “Who First Put ‘Lipstick on a Pig’?” The Slate 10 Sep. 2008. 17 May 2010.