I explain in this blog my reaction to the readings of the week: the chapter “On the Social Phenomenon of ‘Transculturation’ and its Importance in Cuba” from Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar by Fernando Ortiz; and “Transculturation: Contrapuntal Notes to Critical Orthodoxy” by Mark Millington, extracted from Bulletin of Latin American Research.

The first text is from Fernando Ortiz, a Cuban anthropologist from the first half of the twentieth century. He creates and justifies the new word “transculturation” (to replace the term “acculturation” that he believes is inadequate) and uses it to briefly summarize the history of Cuban culture. Transculturation describes the process of transition from one culture to another (with the loss of one’s original culture and the creation (instead of simple adoption) of another culture), with all the social repercussions associated. In Cuba, this process was undergone both by Spanish immigrants (Renaissance workers from poor background arriving in the island with high responsibility) and by African slaves (forcefully torn from their home culture to be used as labour in the new colony).

The second text takes place in the 21rst century. Now, the word “transculturation” is widely accepted, like the word “hybridisation”. The writer, Mark Millington, refers to the text of Ortiz. He criticizes the two words. He is harsher against “hybridisation” because it is conflicting with “hybridity”, its definition still remains imprecise and it has political connotations. Millington seems to agree more on transculturation, though he is not entirely convinced. Ortiz left some points unclear on the definition, such as the idea that transculturation can be experienced at different intensity (the migration of Spaniards / the enslavement of Africans). There is also some doubt about whether transculturation is completely separate from acculturation (movement into another culture). Other recent anthropologists have also argued that the word cannot fully explain the inequalities in Latin America, that it doesn’t offer a solution to this problem and it is hard to assess its relevance in today’s modern world, outside of only Latin America. Yet Millington admits the term transculturation, coined by Ortiz, does have its pros: it allows for an analysis that takes individual actions and realities, as well as local processes into account, so that the study does not remain abstract.