Transnationalism and Atanarjuat

Is globalization/cosmopolitanism/transnationalism a positive or negative force for indigenous communities? In my readings this week, Appadurai aims to develop a new model for global interaction without offering a firm value judgement on those interactions. Forte distinguishes cosmopolitanism from globalization, showing that globalization has grown to include capitalist connotations that limit is usefulness in discussions of cultural dynamics, which the term cosmopolitanism concentrates on. Forte claims that cosmopolitanism can build respect for the other when dealing with cultures around the world. In this definition, cosmopolitanism is clearly a positive force for indigenous communities, as it builds respect for their culture, while globalization would be a negative force attempting to coerce communities into a capitalist framework. Huhndorf argues that transnationalism is the best approach to studying native literature and culture because it does not have the limitations of nationalism, such as a neglect of global historic forces. Deloria strongly suggests that the indigenous way of thinking in terms of space and land is ethically and ecologically better than the Western European terms of time and history, but can one think in terms of space and land while still being cosmopolitan?

What does this mean for Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, a film with a strong locality in terms of landscape and culture, but with a global audience?

A main feature of the film is the landscape. Atanarjuat lives up to his epithet as the fast runner by running naked from his would-be murders across vast spaces of frozen ice. Throughout the film, various seasons and movements across the land are shown. This focus on the land fits with Deloria’s claim of the indigenous way of thinking, but it is also politically motivated, as a Canadian court decided in 1973 that the long-time occupation, possession, and use of land by an indigenous community is justification for the Canadian government to cede that land to the community. Showing that occupation and use of land to a global audience puts global pressure on the Canadian government to follow through with returningthe land to the Inuit.

The film also highlights the culture of the Inuit people, showing how they build igloos, skin seals, and complete other tasks. The entire plot of the film stems from a traditional Inuit story about an evil force that broke the line of tribal leadership succession and had to be expelled. This story is also vaguely political, as it can be read as an allegory for the disruptive force of colonialism that must be expelled to heal the Inuit community. However, much of the film’s global audience are unaware of the traditional story and its implications. Instead of understanding the political implications of the story and the focus on cultural practices, many film critics focus on the exotic nature of the Inuit culture as it differs from Western culture, or on the universal mythic nature of the story. Does this misunderstanding of the film negate its political essence, or does it create another layer of understanding for those scholars and Inuit peoples who are in the know?