The biggest thing I came away with from this week’s readings is the intense melodrama surrounding Latin American mass culture.

When I read the quote on the very first page of Ortega’s piece about the game of 1950 being “Our (Brazil’s) catastrophe, our Hiroshima” (43), I was put off.  When the United States bombed Hiroshima in 1945, upward of one hundred and fifty thousand people died within the first year and many Japanese civilians who survived continued to suffer the effects of intense radiation exposure for years afterward.  I’m sure the quote did not explicitly intend to downplay the gravity of Hiroshima.  I am also both Japanese and American so I think I am particularly sensitized to the issue.  But my bottom line is that I was skeptical as I started reading the first few pages.

Continuing with the reading, however, it became clear to me that in some ways there actually are odd parallels between Japan and Brazil in terms of their lasting fascination with their respective “catastrophes”.  Moving forward from the bombing, Japan viewed itself as a victim of World War II, and consequently has channeled much energy into tying it’s national identity to the concept of peace.  For Brazil, the loss of 1950 was a manifestation of Brazilian’s underlying worry that they “were naturally a defeated people”(55).  As large scale, public example of the country’s “stray dog complex”(55), the game of 1950 solidified Brazil’s national identity as one of a people destined to fight an uphill battle against their inherent bad luck.  The most painful piece for me was when I read how the Maracana stadium “gave Brazil a new soul”(46) as it attempted to establish itself in the modern world.  I don’t know if Bellos adopted some melodrama himself in assessing whether the game caused or was the cause of Brazil’s upward battle mentality, but importance of the game in Brazilian history is certainly not lost.

The Ortega reading gave me a new respect for the Telenovela.  At home, my family used to sometimes turn on Univision, and I was never able to get over my sensitivity to the cheesiness of the shows.  I was unaware of the role that Por estas calles played in shaping Venezuela’s national identity or political climate.  It was striking to me that the show was not totally censored for contributing to the volatile political climate.

Collectively from the two readings, I have realized that melodrama is not something to be seen necessarily as a negative thing, since it can play a crucial role in the development of identity in a way I did not previously recognize.

Apologies for the lateness on this one firstly!

I thought both of these pieces were extremely interesting, because they each provide their own slightly differing theories on what transculturation is and what the term can imply.

From the very start of his piece, Mark Millington is quick to point out how overuse of the term ‘transculturation’ can easily render the term ineffective; mainly due to how overuse shows an ‘inattention to precise definition’. Millington then discusses the difference between transculturation and hybridisation. This mainly occurs at the end of p256, and the beginning of p257.  Importantly, he recognises how hybridisation is a global term, and ‘has associations with post-structuralist postcolonialism because of the widespread acceptance of Homi Bhabha’s view of it’ (p257). I think it is important to know that Homi Bhabha himself is an Indian philosopher (and also current Director of Humanities at Harvard), who essentially defined the term in his own words in his book Narrative & Narration, published in 1990.  Bhabha views colonialism as something which continues to consistently pervade present day life, rather than an ideology which is locked in the past. This theory is drawn from Edward Said’s works, and insists that we our understanding of cross-cultural relations must be transformed. It is also possible to say that his work has transformed the study of colonialism by applying post-structuralist methodologies to colonial texts.

With this in mind, other possible ways of describing transculturation are discussed, for example, Millington says on p258 how ‘transculturation stands alone as a description of a process of mixing’.

It is worth mentioning how Millington’s piece was only written a few years ago, whereas Ortiz’s theories are taken from nearly 100 years ago! Hence Millington’s piece actually references Ortiz’s theories a fair bit!

Ortiz’s piece, concerns a more authentic view of transculturation, albeit far more dated than Millington’s, who has the advantage of foresight. One gets the general impression that Ortiz believes that everything is foreign in Cuba, ie its an amalgamation of other cultures. On p102, Ortiz defines transculturation as transition from one culture to another. Essentially he implies loss of culture on both sides as each culture is absorbed. So it’s different from acculturation, which has traditionally been a process of simply acquiring an another culture and possibly a more complex understanding. Indeed, he mentions how transculturation is process without end and constantly has room for new possibilities to be expressed. There is room for increasing complexity, rather than decreasing complexity.

Ortega’s piece on Latin American media touches on a concept that we are all familiar with, and that is television. What some people may not be as aware of, however, is the extent to which television influences people’s lives and opinions. Within Latin American pop culture, there is a specific type of program, called a telenovela, that captures and captivates its audience with great vigor. A telenovela is a type of serial drama with long convoluted plot lines that assist in keeping the show going for a long amount of time. This type of show actually originated in Latin America and grew rapidly in popularity all over the rest of the world. This is interesting especially compared to last week’s reading on transculturation; as opposed to being an amalgamation of other countries’ and other cultures’ values, this is a genre that instead had a great deal of influence everywhere else. Telenovas depict the values and lives of Latin Americans, making these shows very easy for an audience to connect to and become engrossed in. It’s really interesting to note the differences between North American soap operas and telenovelas. We are so accustomed to over-dramatized scenarios driven by the desire for “money and sex”, whereas telenovelas are specifically designed to connect with the audience in a very real way. Topics such as love and family issues are the key contributors to the genre’s success; however, I really enjoyed the fact that they include issues such as class and gender struggles. All too often I find that American shows ignore these problems, and for the purposes of entertainment they focus on an individual’s need for popularity or whatever the show might be about. To see social constructs challenged regularly through such a prominent genre is refreshing.

I was unable to get started on Bellos’ text in order to write and hand this in on time, but I will be getting to it later on in the week! Looking forward to discussing this form of pop culture in class.

I found Ortiz’ writing on Cuba to be a very interesting follow-up to some of the ideas discussed in Raymond Williams’ Culture is Ordinary. Williams discusses the ways in which cultures in themselves are shift, oscillating, organic, living concepts that cannot be referred to as things. Ortiz then riffs off of that premise in his discussion of how cultures interact (“extremely complex transmutations of culture”), specifically in Cuba’s case. While I think he is justified in coining this neologism ‘transculturation,’ I think his focus on justifying the need for this new word shifts the anthro/socio-logical discussion away from the nuances of the merging, shifting cultures in Cuba towards a discussion over the meaning and significance of the word ‘transculturation.’

– Ortiz, understandably, focuses on the inflow of cultures into Cuba and how transculturation plays out on the island soil. But one thing that strikes me about the complexity of the transculturation concept is that there must be a (not-necessarily-equal) transcultural outflow back to the homeland of the incoming culture. When Europe came to the New World, the Cuban identity must have had an impact, however small, on the culture of the settlers.

– I don’t think that the above is necessarily important to mention in relation to the cultural upheaval taking place in Cuba/the New World, but I think it does have a part in the definition of transculturation that shouldn’t be forgotten. Perhaps in a cultural interaction more balanced than the colonization of the New World this outflow of transculturation would be more relevant and apparent.

– Does transculturation have to be painful? In Cuba’s case (and in all colonial cases) absolutely, I see that it relies on oppression and domination and forwarding of cultural values unwillingly on indigenous peoples. But is there a case in which an exchange of culture is complex enough to qualify as transculturation without there being a gross imbalance of power? Not sure.

Aaaand Mark Millington’s article does just what I didn’t want it to do: argue over the precise definition of transculturation rather than focus on Ortiz’ incredibly rich discussion of Cuba’s cultural past. Buuut thats okay, because Millington does justify why he’s focusing on the definition of the word rather than the context in which it is used.

– Millington associates both hybridisation and transculturation with opposition, as post-colonial Latin American responses. He proposes that transculturation as a term offers a path to resistance.

– Transculturation defies binaries. Yes. This is true. If ontological binaries are what is keeping Latin America from global relevance, then Transculturation does offer a path of resistance. Something tells me its a bit more complex than that…

– Millington proposes that if resistance relies upon a solid grounding that rules out hybridisation as a source of resistance. I would argue that resistance relies on just the opposite. Resistance opposes solid grounding, thus creating upheaval.

– I like Millington’s reading of Ortiz’ work. He highlights the human element that Ortiz does seem to focus on. To me this connects it to Williams’ ideas of cultures as living and breathing – of being made up by the people rather than a separate entity with its own agency.

So I started this week’s readings with Nelson Ortega’s essay on telanovelas. Immediately all I can think about is “Jane the Virgin” a show on Netflix that my sister has me hooked on… The show is described on wikipedia as an “American telanovela” but after reading about the difference between a soap opera and a telanovela, I think that this show is more soap opera-y. But it’s a really cool show filled with Latin American actors and strong women actors and LGBTQ actors, which is awesome. It’s like kind of a good show – but mostly just a really good way for me to procrastinate from doing my life duties… Such as writing this blog post…
Ortega’s essay really enlightened me about telanovelas and their role in Latin America. I think it’s sooooooo cool how ingrained they are in culture and it’s so unique – I have a hard time thinking of an equivalent projection of culture in our society. It’s amazing to me that viewers get so engulfed that they actually reach out and write letters to the actors and give personal opinions about the plot and characters.
It’s neat that almost every Latin American country has it’s own telanovela and it was interesting to in depth look at “Por Estas Calles” role in Venezuela.
I think it would also be interesting to read about critiques on telanovelas – as Im sure there are some problems with declaring that a television show represents a whole country.

The other reading, Futebol: The Brazilian Way of Life, is great too.  I didn’t get a chance to finish it- but I think futebol is definitely similar to the telanovela as a lot of people within one country identify with it- and recognize their culture within it, and by participating and watching this sport- a sense of nationalism emerges.  Similar to that song we watched the video of – El pueblo Unido in Chile – I think Sport, like Music, can be transporting- and can ease tensions between people temporarily.

Ortiz:

Ortiz illustrated the importance of words in regards to the process of acquiring/transition/losing culture(s). He describes the history of Cuba as a mixing of many different processes; from the arrival of white immigrants to the slaves forced into a new life from across the ocean. He describes a history of colonization and struggle, and the subsequent emerging culture can only be described through analysis of the very term transculturation. To understand this term, one must understand the term acculturation, which is the “process of acquiring another culture”. One must also know the term deculturation, which is the “loss or uprooting of a previous culture”. He also throws in the term neoculturation, which is the “consequent creation of new cultural phenomena”. He explains that transculturation embodies all of these definitions, as a culture is continuously moulded and reshaped in response to its given environment. It is not a concrete concept; rather, it is the transition of one culture to another with respect to all its phases of transition.

Millington:

Millington takes a critical stance on Ortiz’s work, posing a great deal of uncertainty around the use of the term “transculturation”. What Ortiz had done was use this as a blanket term, but Millington is wary of its overuse and states that the combination of meanings under this one term leads to a lack of a clear definition. Transculturation as a term has become too general – it undermines the importance of the historical, political, and cultural contexts of Latin America. In class we discussed that the formation of Latin American culture can also be seen as a form of resistance. Millington does not argue that one culture was more influential than another; rather, he attests that for cultures such as the Indigenous or the Blacks, even from positions of “inferiority” they still have a great impact on the budding culture.

Sorry this is really late! I have been busy and kind of forgot but I’m still going to say some things

I think the issue both of these essays fundamentally try to solve or at least explore is the inability of a single word to describe ALL processes of cultural interaction- regardless of context- and I don’t think that can be done. I found Ortiz’ writing to be lovely for the most part he takes special care to detail the trauma and shock and suppression experienced by the native people of what is now Cuba and the African slaves uprooted to there. However, I think his advocation for the sufferings of different groups of people was ultimately futile. he basically just explains how vastly different the experiences of groups of people in Cuba are and why acculturation cannot encompass all of them and then replaced one catch all term with another. It is arguably better or “more attractive” like we discussed in class but is there a real solution or way to improve our specificity that we won’t disregard a history of dominance and imposition so vulgarly?

In his critique of Ortiz’ writing Millington explains why implementing an secondary term to describe the experiences of subaltern groups (victims of violence & oppression) vs. the experiences of those who are uprooted from an original culture in hope of seeking something better (and not to escape violence or oppression.) Not to mention, it cannot take into account the effects of the experience of the individual and the context which surrounds their transition from one cultural experience to another. He says:

“There has been some emphasis in recent discussions of transculturation on interaction, but I think that we need to be clear about what we take that term to mean, because interaction may not imply equality and mutuality. Influences may operate back and forth between cultures but be asymmetrical in quantity and quality, be highly imbalanced and still take place with well oiled efficiency. Above all, therefore, and recalling elements in Ortiz, we need to try to understand how these processes affect people’s lives and the social relations in which they live.” (267)

To conclude: the specific experience of the individual (on whichever side of the power structure they may lie) is transformed and continually influenced by forces of cultural “interaction” yes, but what we should focus on attempting to understand and describe is the forces of influence which have shaped and continue to shape their experience on a more individual level. Instead we tend to want to group people together and use words which can describe our “Globalized” world, but maybe in this instance that may be incredibly difficult. There are definitely patterns and similarities one can find in all groups of people and their daily lives but I think the urge to create one, or even 2, 3, terms to describe the relationships between cultures and on a micro level, people, is impossible but we will definitely keep trying, it’s what we do. What do you think?

Sorry this is really late! I have been busy and kind of forgot but I’m still going to say some things

I think the issue both of these essays fundamentally try to solve or at least explore is the inability of a single word to describe ALL processes of cultural interaction- regardless of context- and I don’t think that can be done. I found Ortiz’ writing to be lovely for the most part he takes special care to detail the trauma and shock and suppression experienced by the native people of what is now Cuba and the African slaves uprooted to there. However, I think his advocation for the sufferings of different groups of people was ultimately futile. he basically just explains how vastly different the experiences of groups of people in Cuba are and why acculturation cannot encompass all of them and then replaced one catch all term with another. It is arguably better or “more attractive” like we discussed in class but is there a real solution or way to improve our specificity that we won’t disregard a history of dominance and imposition so vulgarly?

In his critique of Ortiz’ writing Millington explains why implementing an secondary term to describe the experiences of subaltern groups (victims of violence & oppression) vs. the experiences of those who are uprooted from an original culture in hope of seeking something better (and not to escape violence or oppression.) Not to mention, it cannot take into account the effects of the experience of the individual and the context which surrounds their transition from one cultural experience to another. He says:

“There has been some emphasis in recent discussions of transculturation on interaction, but I think that we need to be clear about what we take that term to mean, because interaction may not imply equality and mutuality. Influences may operate back and forth between cultures but be asymmetrical in quantity and quality, be highly imbalanced and still take place with well oiled efficiency. Above all, therefore, and recalling elements in Ortiz, we need to try to understand how these processes affect people’s lives and the social relations in which they live.” (267)

To conclude: the specific experience of the individual (on whichever side of the power structure they may lie) is transformed and continually influenced by forces of cultural “interaction” yes, but what we should focus on attempting to understand and describe is the forces of influence which have shaped and continue to shape their experience on a more individual level. Instead we tend to want to group people together and use words which can describe our “Globalized” world, but maybe in this instance that may be incredibly difficult. There are definitely patterns and similarities one can find in all groups of people and their daily lives but I think the urge to create one, or even 2, 3, terms to describe the relationships between cultures and on a micro level, people, is impossible but we will definitely keep trying, it’s what we do. What do you think?