CULTURAL AUTHENTICATION

Cultural authentication model presented by Eicher and Erekosima 1980 & 1981

Cultural authentication model presented by Eicher and Erekosima 1980 & 1981

Introduction

Most linguists maintain that language contains the highest and most symbolic level of communication. Consequently then, the characterization stage in the CA process may be the final stage in the process. On the other hand, the order of progression through the CA stages in the authentication process is not necessarily relevant. Each stage sheds light on the process, while helping to understand the cultural shift of meanings. Different cultures, in different temporal, and spatial locations react in ways to their own unique contexts. Consideration of the characteristics of each stage is likely more significant in terms of guiding our study of textile artifacts than is the order proposed in the original theory (Thrum, 1896, 67).\

They had been handmade and based on tropical floral designs that had cut in one large, symmetrical piece in a bright color, then appliquéd onto a thin backing. Next they cut one very sturdy design out of the appliqué´ fabric, a design that covered the entire quilt (Woodard, 1997, 153)

Discussion

In the case author critiques about three things which are cultural authentication. Order of process, and the idea of embeddedness.

Authentication

The authors here critique about the authentication of culture of Hawaiian people and proposed cultural authentication theory. The Hawaiian quilting study appears to confirm that, relative to the Hawaiian textiles (the holoku and kapa apana), the order of steps proposed in Cultural authentication theory (CA) needs adjustment. In both cases, naming occurred very late, rather than early in the authentication process. As a key indication of cultural appropriation, the naming of an item signifies its cultural referent. The point, at which the receiving culture assigns a permanent term, is a significant milestone. Names are so deeply ...