By Johnny Coomansingh
On the 4th of July, 2024 parliament passed a bill making the famous steelpan the national instrument of Trinidad and Tobago. History has it that approximately 70 years ago, descendants of enslaved Africans inadvertently created a new instrument from steel drums discarded by the United States Navy. Since then, the steelpan has attracted researchers and entrepreneurs from around the world because of its unique and entertaining sound.
In 1992, the instrument was named the national instrument of Trinidad and Tobago. Although it was named, the process was not totally ratified. The phenomenon emerged as the quintessential musical instrument for the raucous and ribald Trinidad Carnival, a pre-Lenten celebration that serves as the country’s major attraction for tourists. Nevertheless, associated with the instrument are several conflicts.
Once upon a time, contentions among local steelpan players sometimes culminated in bloody battles during carnival celebrations in Trinidad. Much to the chagrin of many citizens of Trinidad and Tobago was the patenting of a hydroforming process for manufacturing steelpans by two Americans. The crafting of the steelpan did not stay, as it were, in the yard under any ‘breadfruit tree.’
Beyond this ‘hallowed’ spot, great strides have been made in the technological arena with respect to the mass manufacture of steelpans abroad, especially in the United States of America. In view of this, Trinidad and Tobago became aware that part of their cultural resource was apparently being exploited, or rather appropriated. The concept of cultural appropriation suggests that culture belongs to a corporate, definable group bounded in space and across time.
Moreover, the group’s identity is tautologically speaking, defined by its cultural forms and practices; not to mention that various kinds of appropriation exist, which includes the notion of outright theft, cultural degradation, transformation, and alteration. This situation gave rise to international conflict not only between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States but also amongst steelpan manufacturers within the United States who are disgruntled with one another.
In the eyes of some Trinidadians, this move by external steelpan makers amounted to cultural piracy. It is quite lucid that culture is a most difficult concept to define, but three aspects of society make culture possible; artefacts, sociofacts, and mentifacts being the most cerebral, psychological aspect of a culture. This is the aspect most protected. The steelpan as an artefact is the cultural product forged from the combined effort of Trinidadian society.
The instrument is essentially part of the mentifactual property of a people. The question remains whether the authenticity of the steelpan instrument resides in the crafting of the instrument at the local level on the immediate landscape of Trinidad.
Beyond any doubt, the steelpan was invented in Trinidad almost by accident. Emerging from the slums and shanties of the Port of Spain suburbs, the sound of the steelpan was basically a call to freedom from slavery and a celebrative element of emancipation enmeshed in the pre-Lenten carnival. Colonial oppressors at one time stymied the expression of the children of enslaved Africans. They prevented their drumming but expression materialized in the formation of tamboo-bamboo bands. And despite the political and religious “noise” from the Afro-Indo leader(s) in Trinidad and Tobago, the steelpan became a vital part of the soundscape of Trinidad and Tobago. The cultural icon is now a cultural product.
No one knew what the final product would have been. Moreover, with the advances in technology, research and development, it is still not clear if the innovation has come to a point of tonal finality, in the sense that there is ongoing experimentation with the creation in several countries. Clifford Alexis in his article: Construction and tuning of steelpans in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (1995) stated:
“During its years of existence, the steelpan has evolved from a folk instrument in its native Trinidad to a versatile instrument capable of performing a wide range of musical styles from symphonic to calypso. Tonal design of the various instruments is approaching standardization but still, there is considerable experimentation in the physical design of individual instruments.”
In parallel with its development, conflicts have arisen in several quarters, locally and internationally with regard to historical claims and cultural heritage. The history of the instrument is in a state of disarray and confusion because no one was ‘careful’ to write about its progression. Because of the ‘failure’ to record, several important aspects of the soundscape have escaped notice. As time progresses so too will be the distribution of the instrument.
Many countries have adopted the instrument while others have just had some exposure. Adopting the instrument are over ten countries of Europe, North America the Caribbean region and several countries of East and Central Asia. Much to their delight, some African countries, for example Botswana, are now receiving the phenomenon. It would not be long again until the children of expatriated slaves present their musical gifts to the land of their ancestors.
Concerning its authenticity and heritage, the steelpan’s evolution has always been fraught with conflict. Despite the controversies, whether local or international, the instrument, over the last 60 years, has flourished and has been distributed around the world. Today, steelpan culture is being seriously commodified. In other words, the physical instrument and its sound are now commodities for sale, products for consumption.
In view of this, authenticity is paramount in the case of the steelpan. In almost every quadrant of culture and society, people tend to refer to the idea of authenticity to present a case. Researcher Cary De Wit for example, discussed the “validity of labels” as “documentation of a product.” M. A. Litrell and others in their article What makes a craft souvenir authentic? (1993) published in the Annals of Tourism Research indicated that the criteria concerning authenticity included a “craft’s uniqueness, workmanship, aesthetics and use, cultural and historical integrity, and genuineness.”
Characteristics of the craftsperson and the shopping experience also contributed to ‘authenticity.’ In further clarification of authenticity, four themes were highlighted that describe the concept, viz: (i) the use of local materials at the destination, (ii) the local hand-crafting of the product, (iii) uniqueness and the display of the artist’s signature, and (iv) the cost, quality, and design of the item.
Moreover, tracing the origin of a product has much to say in regard to its authenticity as espoused by Cary De Wit. In essence, Cheryl Hargrove in her article Authenticity in cultural heritage tourism (2003) published in the National Trust for Historic Preservation clarified the situation with the authenticity of cultural heritage of a resource by stating:
“If the resource is not protected, then the very opportunity to attract visitors with authentic experiences vanishes. For cultural heritage tourism, the authentic resource is defined by an entire “sense of place” -inclusive of the gateway, the built environment, the landscape, the cuisine and cultural traditions, and the souvenirs to purchase. If the resident is not considered in the development, marketing, and management of the destination, then the benefits are often lost.”
The association and relevance to a particular location then becomes a critical factor involved with the marketing process of a product. According to J. Pleshek in the article Assuring Authenticity published in Global Cosmetic Industry (2003), “globalization and technology have changed the way businesses compete.” Cary De Wit added: “Marketers may use place associations to persuade people that the place somehow comes with the product.” Eric Gable in his 1996 article After Authenticity at an American Heritage Site published in the American Anthropologist maintained: “An enduring image of the modernist anxiety is that the world we inhabit is no longer authentic – that it has become fake, plastic, a kitschy imitation.”
Stressing the need for authenticity Andrew Nurse affirmed in Ethnohistory (2001), “cultural adaptations or development” can signal only one thing, “cultural decay.” Eric Gable clarified the concept of imitation or lost authenticity and the idea that there is a relationship between authenticity and credibility, especially in terms of heritage as a form of cultural salvage. In context, from a constructivist view, he explained the relationship between authenticity, credibility, and the tourist market in terms of ‘the real past,’ ‘documented facts,’ and ‘veracity in detail.’
Adding to the discussion, Professor Madawi al-Rasheed in the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies (1998) explained: “The search for cultural authenticity was considered as a mechanism for asserting the identity of a group, and this draws upon cultural and historical elements…this assertion has come to replace direct confrontations with competitors or copycats, thus allowing resistance to take place at the level of cultural contestation.”
Why is authenticity so important? The Trinidad steelpan as a cultural icon has a ‘cultural landscape.’ Tanja Kotro in Design Issues (2002) indicated that there is a host of “cultural interpretations, and meanings” that are related to the instrument. The steelpan has definitely been proven in this study to be part of the heritage of Trinidad and Tobago, indeed part and parcel of its mentifactual construct.
In context therefore, Trinidad and Tobago is a place in its own right, a sovereign nation having the right to the creation of the steelpan because “boundaries represent,” among other things, “… an exercise in cultural power which itself should be an object of scrutiny” as embraced by Michael J. Watts, in Geografiska Annaler (1991). “Heritage is now a product for consumption,” says Adi Taha, a Malaysian UNESCO delegate. The Futurist in its 1993 article Culture for sale stated: “If it is consumed by someone who doesn’t understand the culture, it will have a negative impact.”
During fieldwork discussions, it is apparent that this negative impact is still being felt among some steelpan players, steelpan makers, and people interested in the welfare of the foremost icon of Trinidad and Tobago. Regardless, David Brett in his book titled: The Construction of Heritage (1996) intimates that heritage forms part of the cultural fabric or logic of post-Fordism (capitalism), which inadvertently, is structured to facilitate the commodification of everything. It is inescapable that heritage is “a major arena of conflict and contestation…multi-sold and multi-consumed” as Brian Graham and others mentioned in their book: A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy (2000).
Jacob Delworth Elder in his text, From Congo Drum to Steelband: A Sociological Account of the Emergence and Evolution of the Trinidad Steel Orchestra (1969) spoke in context of heritage and culture. He made it clear that the steelpan emerged from the drums of Africa with particular reference to the religious Shango drums brought from Yorubaland, Nigeria. And although the vast following of peoples the world over who love and play the steelpan may not be cognizant of its origins, deep within the sound that the steelpan produces are the ‘spirits’ of the Ogun, and the other deities of the Shango, and no one could change the past.
In the steelpan is the creative essence of a people hatched in a society indirectly cultivated by colonialism. In the sound that the instrument generates is the very soul, and spirit of the peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, regardless of those citizens who ignore the creation. So to present the steelpan and its sound as a commodity without the awareness of this fact is to devalue the status of the cultural product, undermine its heritage, and reduce its authenticity.
When cultural meanings become fuzzy, estranged or lost, the product loses its integrity as genuine and will eventually decline. The big question remains: Is a steelpan instrument constructed in the United States of America or elsewhere authentic when compared to a locally hand-crafted steelpan made in Trinidad?
