When Syncretism Dies, Cultures Die

ceterum censeo carthaginem esse delendam

Here’s something that’s shocking to say: Most of what you think of as traditional, regardless of where you live, has only appeared 3 generations ago, three generations only. For the few things that existed beforehand, they mostly didn’t exist in their current form, and weren’t as widespread — thus can’t really be called an authentic heritage.
Try it, list 10 things that you personally consider classics and find when they originated and started to be commonplace with the general population, you’ll notice 8-out-of-10 are relatively recent, or at least more recent than you thought.

Yet, we’re increasingly surrounded, you and I in our so-called “modern progressive societies”, with people that are constantly obsessed, and take it for granted, that we should strive to achieve the pure essence of something, its origin, and would throw a fit of rage at anyone that offers the most tiny divergence from it.
These sort of secular templar fighters act as defenders of a romanticized past, a sort of evolutionary cul-de-sac. Indeed, they take these customs as the final form that should be preserved unchanged at all cost for infinity and beyond.

However, as I’ll argue, this thinking is deluded. Everything that starts should and will continue. Anyone standing in the way of its movement will perish and stop progression. We cannot live in a snapshot of an archive of our cultures, regardless of how precious it is to safekeep archives of our history; cultures keep evolving.
From food, art, fashion, music, dance, religions, language, politics, and more, without syncretism and creativity cultures die, and I think this is a topic that matters today!

Ever seen monkeys wash potatoes? It’s definitely an enjoyable research rabbit hole about cultural transmission, vestigial behavior, and assimilation.
While the anecdote about monkeys and the extrapolations made from it are often dubious, I’d like to believe humans are similar but by sheer willful ignorance, aka cognitive dissonance. We don’t want to admit that what we do isn’t “obvious common sense”, or that it’s “just a trend” that started a few generations back. We prefer to gently float in the ether of a perfect and absolute truthful Platonic world, full of perennialist beliefs, where things fell into place because “they’re better done that way”, after an infinite amount of crafting honed and passed down through generations, and handed down as perfect jewel heirlooms.
…And this beautiful story quickly falls apart when we’re exposed to other cultures and ways of thinking. People often have vehement angry battles about such pedantism. We all did, you and I included, remember when someone “botched” a classic recipe because they dared to include an ingredient that should have never come in contact with it — pure heresy, right?!

Indeed, traditions, rituals, and customs have this inherent attribute to appear timeless. Still, it goes to say that all of these started somewhere, whether we realize how far back or not. Everything is made up and fits a narrative of continuity.
I agree, that sounds postmodern and directly brings to mind concepts such as deconstructionism and reconstructionism (or other ism’s). Yet, give me a break and leave that argument aside, let’s juggle with what I’m proposing.

Let’s define certain words so that we’re on the same track. A routine is a checklist, a collection of repetitive tasks, they’re quite technical. Meanwhile, a custom is a specific behavior or function we do by habit and that is common within a subset of the population, it has been standardized or institutionalized, and how far back it goes doesn’t matter. Lastly, a tradition is what’s around the custom, the behavior, paraphernalia, and symbolics that are formalized, ritualized, that we believe need to be there, and happen in a certain way, otherwise it would lose its value.
For example, a custom is what the judge do, the tradition is the robe that the judge wears, or the oath that they give at the beginning of a session.

The historian Eric Hobsbawm, a good bloke who deeply studied these stuff, is more precise with the definition and emphasizes that traditions are practices, either dictated by overtly or tacitly accepted rules in a society, with a ritualistic or symbolic nature. They intrinsically have the ability to inculcate or carry certain values and norms of behavior through their repetition, and automatically imply a continuity with the past. Nevertheless, this past is not objective, it is a suitable imagined historic past: a past that connects the present narrative with a mythologized and romanticized history that fits the continuity.
Creations are created; Keep this in mind for now, we’ll come back to it.

However, when reading history in details, it always seemed to me like people used to be more pragmatic and exchanged all sorts of ideas, including gods, just like we’d exchange collectible cards today. What was that about?

This idea is called syncretism.
The word is likely to come from the greek synkretismos, “syn” (σύν, together) “kretes” (Κρῆτες), the Cretan Federation. The Cretans were a flexible island people that preferred to compromise and reconcile their differences, merge, and exchange together instead of fighting. This stronger alliance made them more resilient to face external dangers, basically synergy.

With that in mind, we can understand that today the word syncretism is used in its metaphoric sense. In general it refers to the practice of joining different, often discrete, ideas and traditions, and being open to combine them so that they become their own new cohesive thing.

The slippery slope fallacy that some people will often bring at this point is that this will be tempting to want to prove that everything is linked “by some inner truth” (whatever that means), and that everything should merge in a united mass. But I’d argue that when you mix all the colors you end up with something gray and bland, and not with something alive, new, and cohesive. Syncretism is more about experimenting and trying to see if including and adopting elements, ideas, and behaviors of systems that are often distinct, can actually create something unexpectedly good.

Just like with the Cretans, syncretism is a process of integration to facilitate coexistence and interaction. All of history and culture is syncretism: countless opportunities where beliefs, customs, behavior, traditions, traveled on roads, seas, rails, and air, to then get in contact with other civilizations that resonated with it and successfully morphed it into something new. This often happened through merchants, but also with rulers of realms, kingdoms, and empires, that had to keep the “peace” in their wide multiethnic and diverse population.

One of the prominent, and least polemic, example of this is food. Obviously, some basic ideas are as ancient as humans such as stews/soups/hotpots, but I’d say this isn’t a particular recipe but a category (like bread and dried/preserved food).
Even if we’d like to act as culinary preservationists, we have to admit all recipes are syncretistic in nature and what we find traditional is only their latest expression. Anybody who has dabbled with ancient handwritten cookbooks (or notes), such as Max Miller will tell you that things are often vague and open to interpretation.

Let’s cite a few ingredients that came from the new world (Columbian Exchange):

What would Cantonese cuisine be without pepper
What would Mexican cuisine be without Pork
What would Italian and Ghanaian cuisines be without tomatoes
What would French, German, and Belgian cuisine be without potatoes
etc..

An excellent, and non-polemical display of this is the exchange of the culinary culture within the Ottoman empire, this can clearly be seen across the Eastern Mediterranean. After its fall, in the 1920s, each country has continued to modify the (mostly same) dish in their own nationalistic manner (but will always say their version is better).

Also, a fun morsel of history: did you know that the fork only started to spread in Europe after the 1700s? It started in Italy (at least what was considered Italy at the time before unification) as an aristocratic fuss in the mid 1600s, and even then it took a long time to become commonplace. Can you imagine people eating spaghetti with their hands by the fistful? (Culture of the Fork — Giovanni Rebora, also AtlasObscura entry)

Another example, one that is intensely polemical (at least in some places) is religion. Yet, nothing is as more apparent than when we look at the ones that are further away from our current cultural context, in time or in geography. It seems in some people’s modern head, that the lack of rigidity in attitudes and practices, and how adaptable certain communities are/were is incomprehensible. Yet, all major religions in the world today such as Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, and Confucianism are to a fair extent syncretistic.
I won’t bother you with the Hellenistic period, empires that have come and gone, and the influence of missionaries of different faith. You can do that research on your own. I’ll just say that all major religious conversions of population have had elements from prior religious traditions incorporated into their doctrine, one way or another, and endure with the newly converted. Yet, most wouldn’t dare to apply the label “syncretistic” to their faith today.
Personally, I prefer to see this as it is because it makes it more beautiful: a rich mosaic of ideas and influences.

So even if that’s all true, it doesn’t answer the question of why it feels like syncretism is something that happened in the past and doesn’t happen anymore? Why don’t we exchange ideas like trading cards anymore, shouldn’t it be easier with the world interconnected like it is now?

The answer is not simple but it begins with how we perceive our identity today. It lies in how we define ourselves in the current psychosocial, sociopolitical, and sociosemiotic context. Let’s slowly unpack things.

An identity is a symbol, and as any symbol, it is based on an agreed fictional story, a reality that is ratified by consensus. Hence, it is by nature an unstable and vague definition. This definition today often contains a reference to nationality: we consider our nationality, and what comes with it such as traditions and customs, as part of our identity.
Furthermore, this identity, and indirectly our nationality, is also carried with us and used as a medium through which we see and interpret the world around us.

Historians somewhat agree that the beautiful date of 1848 is when nation-states started to be a thing; that’s a quite recent occurence. Indeed, nations too are a syncretistic idea, like the Cretans, to bring “individuals” together and decide on a common future. However, the novelty is that nations also want to have a say on what is the common past and want every individual to play their part in the game.

So, did we all agree to this?
Obviously, this didn’t start in a vacuum. We like to associate ourselves with people that are similar to us, that’s a way to express our identity by proxy. Meanwhile, we know that ideologies are never force-fed, but should be deliberately acknowledged: nobody can be persuaded if they don’t want to be persuaded.
Traditions, a fixation on meaning, removing all ambiguity about the story through repetition, are good mechanisms and guides to hold the concept of nation together, especially that it’s not so far from the innate tribalism we all have. “We’re just a much larger tribe now.” Yet, this initial step of unification isn’t easily reached. Another thing holding people together can be shared hatred, fear, and suffering: A collective memory of a past or current enemy. “Us vs them,” as they say in the business.
Once the theme is set and reinforced with a media narrative, the feelings of nostalgia, incurred or real, act as the cement that glues the broken sculpture together. Everything gains additional emotional weight, another thing in common with your peer from a much larger tribe, another tangible link defining our identity, our place, and our story.

The fellow historian Eric Hobsbawm lists 3 types of traditions, let me paraphrase him:

The traditions used to symbolize social cohesion and membership to a group. We enjoy this one because humans are status seekers and always want to stand out as special part of a group and we cave in to peer pressure. This also creates a separation between a majority and minority.
The traditions used to legitimizes institutions and authority. We drool over the fluff and associate it with higher hierarchy: think of it like the expensive feathers on a peacock.
The traditions used to socialize us into belief, the ones where repetition is an inculcation of the value system and conventions of behavior.

What is chosen, deliberately or not, to be part of the traditions, norms, and customs are the things that are harmless to, or bolster, the national identity narrative. We want to tread a well-defined line with the past.
For that reason, many of these are things such as culinary traditionalism, folk dances, sports, dresses, songs, and the myth of the “last craftsman”.
Oh we love the story of the last person to inherit a legacy art, especially when it seems they are not able to transmit their skills to the youth. We’ve all heard that one. But even these customs morphed with time, and in reality nobody truly cares about them. We only cling to the abstract idea of ancient wisdom and lineage, of an identity that disappears and is indirectly part of what we consider “us”. Additionally, we don’t want to change the old ways either, we don’t want to reinvigorate them and keep them alive, as it would compromise the orthodoxy and the dream of an imagined past. They’re kept as-is: an archive of the past that we wish would live on forever.

Hobsbawm had an important discovery: There is always a burst of new traditions during times of swift societal changes. Whenever the current social pattern is in danger, new traditions appear to stick the broken pieces together in a collage that makes more sense. These new behaviors are there to reify the changes, to give them credence, make us feel like they’ve always been the good choice, and pass on these ideas to our progeny.
Rapid changes are tough on people, everyone feels lost, detached from reality, society, and history: it’s total anomie. We need something to help us make sense of the world, a cohesive galaxy of knowledge where things fit into their right place. And what better way than memories of a common past.

Undoubtedly, our times are rife with abrupt social changes. Within the past 10-15 years, we finished moving from a modern world to a postmodern one, all politics are now about globalism vs nationalism and this is magnified by the advancement in technology.
The world is now a playground for nations, ideologies, soft and hard power.

So, despite the claims of progress, and probably because of said progress, there is a noticeable revival of puritanical attitudes in all aspects of life. In a global world, the more we feel lost the more we get attached to what we know: traditions.
Our exposure, even when we think that we’re open to others and encourage sharing, is often filled with the internalized notion that we are defined by where we come from.

The transition to a global, neoliberal, and chaotic interconnected world has put in jeopardy the concept of nations, it has made it ambiguous, nebulous. For those who hold it within their identity it feels like an attack. Hence, the response is defensive: a fixation on eternalism, on wistful certainty, and concrete path. Consequently, we see the rise of identity politics, we want to eliminate all ambiguity.

A coping mechanism we often notice is that people try to amplify their imagined notion of identity: identity signaling. They act their identity, doing everything to make it seem consistent and perfect. This is especially true with the increase in migratory movements around the world, usually for economical reasons. Indeed, the diaspora always seem to be more theatrical in how they show their national identity. It’s a way to avoid cognitive dissonance and psychological stress in a world where everything is a competition and the self is seen as a product to be marketed. An obsession with the “self”, aspirational narcissism, the ever-elusive self-that-isn’t.
These extremes are clear indicators that there is something wrong in our societies and the way we see things. We know that reality isn’t sterile and spotless, that nations are inherently imperfect, that things don’t fit in neat boxes, and that the majority of borders are quite recent.

Unspoken cultural ambiguities, anxieties, weaknesses, and tensions. The internet is a crazy train that makes it all clash. Tech moved so rapidly!
Three generations ago people didn’t have a fridge in their houses, can you imagine that? And now we’re in the digital age baby, talking with bots all day, and have algorithms that regurgitate words like mukbang does for food.

In this new media era, only the firm, strong, and confident (insane?) expressions of identity are rewarded. Everyone is running behind virtual brownie points, trying to get some validation.
This curation and (memetic) dissemination are obviously huge factors explaining why syncretism isn’t surfacing more these days. It’s because nuances are almost impossible on the internet.

I won’t bother you with this topic though, since it’s been written about everywhere, and I’ve even written a book about it.

With that, I think we should embrace syncretism more!
I’ve only focused on identity through nationalism to get the point across, it’s a bit of a strawman, other examples are everywhere around us, but it’s the prominent one.

Furthermore, I’m definitely not a radical relativist, nor would I say that nothing is authentic and that there’s no value there. That’s the slippery slope I was talking about earlier. Actually, I’m a proponent of the concept of nations, I think it’s a strong syncretistic idea, and one of the best we could come up with. On the other hand, I see it for what it is: an agreed symbol and tool. (You can argue on the different between country, state, and nation)

If you want to take one message from this post it’s this: be more playful and hold your identity lightly. Without syncretism, without the constant reinterpretation, modification, mixing, there is no creation and no more culture, we become static relics. If it’s common then it’s not creative.

Fusion food is ok, it isn’t a sacrosanct affront to your ancestors… It’s ok to question whether what you take as the “correct” way is the right way for you. We routinely underestimate the importance of our active contribution to sense-making.

Maybe create a more cosmopolitan identity, a globetrotter identity.
Or even use both geography and temporality to create syncretism, mix and match the past and future.

Lastly, I’ve noticed this post is starting to be part of a theme on this blog where I tackle topics part of a constellation, have a look at these if you’ve enjoyed the article you’ve just read:

On this, I leave you!
Have a nice day!

If you want to have a more in depth discussion I'm always available by email or irc. We can discuss and argue about what you like and dislike, about new ideas to consider, opinions, etc..
If you don't feel like "having a discussion" or are intimidated by emails then you can simply say something small in the comment sections below and/or share it with your friends.