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.