|home | alphabetical index|
TransculturationTransculturation is a term coined by Fernando Ortiz in 1947 to describe the phenomenon of merging and converging cultures. In simple terms, it reflects the natural tendency of people to (in general) resolve conflicts over time, rather than exaccerbate them. In a modern context, both conflicts and resolutions are amplified by communication and transportation technology. The tendencies of societies to drift or stay apart, has been replaced by stronger forces for bringing societies together. Where tranculturation impacts ethnicity and ethnic issues the term "ethnoconvergence" is sometimes used.
The general processes of tranculturation are extremely complex-- steered by powerful forces at the macrosocial level, yet ultimately are resolved at the interpersonal level. The driving force for conflict is simple proximity -- boundaries, once separating people (providing for a measure of isolation ) become the issue of a conflict when societies encroach upon one another territorially. If a means to co-exist cannot be immediately found, then conlficts can be hostile, leading to a process by which contact between individuals leads to some resolution. Often, history shows us, the processes of co-existence begins with hostilities, and with the natural passing of polarist individuals, comes the passing of their polarist sentiments, and soon some resolution is achieved. Degrees of hostile conflict vary from outright genocidal conquest, to lukewarm infighting between differing politcal views within the same ethnic community.
In one general sense, tranculturation covers war, ethnic conflict, racism, multiculturalism, interracial marriage, and any other of a number of contexts that deal with more than one culture. In the other general sense, tranculturation is the positive aspect of global phenomena and human events, where resolutions to conflicts are inevitable.
Where attempts are made to keep a cultural identity "pure," the realities of social change, via natural and artificial means, dictates that cultures do not remain "pure," rather are destined to change. It is the perception of individuals within cultures that their cultures do not in fact change fundamentally over time.
Human mortality and reproduction provides for social regeneration as well, and by this process of regeneration, which naturally includes sexual union, other cultures are often integrated. The inability of societies to maintain divisions over generations, despite attempts to engrain divisive elements, is reflective of this. As parents die, their children have the opportunity to reflect upon the nature and validity of established non-convergent precepts, and change them if they like.
These changes often represent differences between homeland populations, and their diasporic communities abroad. Nevertheless, obstacles to ethnoconvergence are not great. The primary issue; language, ( hence, communication and education) can, be overcome within a single generation - as is evident in fascile acclimation children of foreign parents. English, for example, is spoken by more non-Anglo-American people than Anglo-Americans, making it the current lingua-franca, the worldwide defacto-standard international language.
Within each smaller ethnicity, individuals may tend to see it perfectly justified to assimilate with other cultures, and some others view assimilation as wrong and incorrect for their culture. This common theme, representing dualist opinions of ethnoconvergence itself, within a single ethnic group is often manifested in issues of sexual partners and matrimony, employment preferences, etc. These varied opinions of ethnoconvergence represent themselves in a spectrum,; assimilation, homogenization, and cultural compromise are commonly used terms for ethnoconvegence which flavor the issues to a bias.
Often it's in a secular, multi-ethnic environment that cultural concerns are both minimalised and exaccerbated; Ethnic prides are boasted, hierarchy is created ("center" culture versus "periphery") but on the other hand, they will still share a common "culture", and common language and behaviours. Often the elderly, more conservative-in-association of a clan, tend to reject cross-cultural associations, and participate in ethnically similar community-oriented activities. Xenophobes tend to think of cross-cultural contact as a component of assimilation, and see this as harmful.
We can divide ethnicity into two distinct areas, as they relate to ethnoconvergence: Utilitarian traits, and traditional customs. Language usually falls into the first category, as people often do not attach to language a highly ethnic value. Learning a foreign language does not, in the eyes of most people, constitute a forfeiting of ones cultural heritage.
Religion, on the other hand, is a highly personal and attached part of culture. However, religion does not neatly correspond with ethnic identity. In many cosmopolitan societies, religion is everything - social, utilitarian, intellectual, political; from the point of view of people of immersed cultures; The very concept of ethnicity and its distinctions is incongruous to their immersed concepts.
In many societies, such as in those in Europe, languages are considered a significant component of ethnic values. This belies the fact that most Europeans reject learning other learn other languages. Quite the contrary, Europeans are often polyglots, and may label other individuals by their ethnicities; practical means of distinguishing cultures may resemble tendencies similar to ethnocentrism.
However, the political and cultural significance of regional or national languages are retained due to the fact that these polyglots conform to the linguistic norms of the place they visit - doing "as the Romans do". Thus, conforming to the "ethnic integrity" of the region.
It has even become a cliche that "to learn a new language is to adopt a new soul". There are many other examples of the essential significance of language. In pre-Russian Siberia, Tatar-Mongol colonists in the Taiga often recognized indigenous speakers of Turkic languages as their "own people" and non-Turkic groups as "foreigners". This is in spite of the fact that these indigenous groups had a similar level of material culture, and shared much of a primitive culture with tribes foreign to the Muslim-Buddhist Tatar-Mongols.
|copyright © 2004 FactsAbout.com|