An análysis of transcultural redundancies

 An analysis of transcultural redundancies

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

Written in english and translated to english 

by Abdel Hernandez san Juan

   This essay proposes to discuss the non-coincidence or the non-repetitive nature of a repetition which is not yet repetition in the sense of a full coincidence with what is supposed to be repited, something I have defined as non-repetitive repetitions or non identitary repetitions

  This principle belong to classical questions very abstracts on language and reality, symbolization and world, sensible multiplicities or pregiven worlds and perceptions, reflects and representations but must evolve also sociological and empirical issues to the analysis of certain economic, linguistic and cultural formations of subjectivity and sensibility, from mass medias and telecommunications, to modernity, technology, consume, markets as to a variety of phenomena’s as the one I will focus this time, the analysis of what I would like to define as transcultural redundancies

   Specifically, I am committed here to discuss something i have discussed previously but instead of focusing museographic representations or about relations between visual medias and culture as in ny formar efforts, this time I will focus and analyses culture immediacies issue instead of culture mediated by representations between audiences and publics, moreover, I am making reference here again to the relation between the united states and Mexico culturally.

   This cultural relation as I set aside it among other books, is nothing far to my own cultural formation before well must be understand as the axis of my experience of cultural transformation as emigrant in the united states, the relation between the Texas culture in terms of sensibility and subjectivity and the Mexican culture under it meaning as feel as sometimes reified from Anglo-Saxon Texan constrictions, thus as well as and on the other side, the Texan usa culture as feel and sometimes reified inside Mexican sensibility and subjectivity, so as an issue of cultural identity formations in one culture inside another which is itself a transculturation phenomenon.

   My experience in this sense is developed from a united states perspective since I meet Mexico from usa and since I know mexicanicity as inclusive to Texan culture, while not as much completely unconnected with a Mexican perspective since on the one hand I visited Monterrey one months and some other Mexican villages such as new Leon and san Luis of Potosi and since my own sister emigrated to Mexico and her douthers born in Mexico

   The issue in question is as follow

   I sustain that contemporary Mexican culture is itself transcultural, I understand by transculturation here the relation between, on the one hand, the north culture of Mexico and the south of usa intersection, on the other, the migrant Hispanic culture from Europe defined the main process of transculturation generated what Mexico is as a new western culture and the relation between such a urban, modern, contemporary culture and Mexican traditions of Amerindian composition since the Azteca’s, Mayas and their current communities, all this three elements of contemporary Mexico experienced a mixation, a creolization and more over a full transculturation from which the new Mexican culture take shape, contemporary Mexico in fact is a new culture resulted from such a transcultural transformation

  So that Mexico itself have nothing to do with the memory of the previous elements later mixed, but with the fusion of it to something new. In this process of transculturation Mexico evolutioned to be new transcultural identities and the formation of a new self in respect to the past

   Now well, the contemporary dynamics of Mexican culture is also permeated by a new and more recent processes of transnationalization which started with economy and financial markets but which expressed also in consume and tourism is evolving new forms of interculturality, a new process of transculturation which is not idem to the previous former one already discussed but a new one with new characteristics started since at least in a sustained form the eighties

  Such a new transcultural process is related with the translationalization of economy and of financial markets initiated during the eighties and intensified during the nineties started to have consequences beyond economy and consume, possibly affecting the formation of new cultural processes or new dynamics of cultural formations of the self under each individual. 

   This dynamics of new transculturation’s related with the translationalization of economy and of financial markets is at the same time new and older, it must be recognized as older in the sense that without the former already discussed transculturation defined Mexico as a new transcultural formation the new started transculturation is impossible to be figured out and it is new since while being to a certain level a redundancy of transculturation over the former one in terms of Mexicans feelings and experience with transculturation’s, it is evolving the new processes of intercultural learnings and of cultural identity formations

      So we are speaking on two transculturation’s,  a first one related with the source of ethnological earlier composition of large date gazing it from today to the traditional ancestors in its three directions, the migrant Hispanic culture, the border with usa culture and the traditional Amerindian culture and another one transculturation of a short data, synchronic and current instead of diachronic, recent to a certain point, referred to new transcultural process resulting from the interculturality evolved within the new forms of markets, tourism and consume.

   The second transculturation is thus in this sense a repetition of the former one as a subsequent or further derived from it next one level but it is not already yet the former one, we must even say that its is and it is not the former at the same time, because without the former the current is impossible to be experience as expressed above, but the further already current is a non-repetitive repetition since while based in the former one is already evolving the formation of new cultural processes derived from intercultural learning, it is thus yet non identitary or non-repetitive in all its senses as brings within it the formation of new identities and new forms of the self to the individuals.

  The main basis of my analysis is founded on the principle that the main elements define cultural reproduction are langue, education and sexuality, but I also think that economy, markets, tourism and consume play an importance on it since sometimes it may even sign the process through which tradition must survive and be reproduced

   At the same time I am interested to discuss another modality of my concept of transcultural redundancies, a concept derived from my previous concept of non-repetitive repetitions, since I have experienced that a similar phenomenon of redundancies must be sustain with another specificities at the level of Texas culture now seen from the united states and as a united states endogenous own phenomena. 

   As I discussed it already in another papers I consider the resonances of Mexican culture inside the south border culture of the united states cultural identity pivotals, this echoes and resonances however are understanded only by united states people living near to the borders and seen from the Anglo-Saxon side, meaning, as expressed under and inside Texas sensibility and subjectivity, it is in the food, in music and within several expressions of material and immaterial Texan culture, of course, such resonances and echoes of certain aspects or elements of Mexican culture are far to be Mexican culture itself since it is as ever in transculturation something new evolving the mix of several cultural heritages and legacies of the American both migrations and land culture, but my point of focus is about to sustain that such a usa Texan transculturation is itself again a non-repetitive repetition, it is on the one hand, a repetition of previous Texas transculturation’s while non-repetitive so as evolving new cultural and identitary formations of the self

  Now my focus in this paper is not as much on the usa transcultural own process inside united states culture something I discussed more focused within previous books, but this time I am interested in focusing and discussing the definition of a kind of anthropology which is defined in itself as transcultural being made by overall united states anthropologists in Mexico and within the binational space of both cultures interactions. 

   The reason to focus the implication of the concept of transculturation within a practice of anthropology as such is because first I participated myself in the theoretization and defining of that anthropology since its first form during my theoretical dialogues with quetzil eugenio, and second because I am myself evolved in the practice of it from the united states since I have participated in several of this practices from Illinois and Houston, while also Florida

   Also because my perspective on Mexico is highly defined from usa in both senses according to my participation in this practices and more simply according to my own cultural experience of self-cultural transformation as an emigrant in Texas meaning as Texas become by a longer time the cultural site from which everything about my own subjectivity, sensibility and identity transformations take shape in quotidian life.

    This is about the transcultural consequences derived from intercultural and multiethnic communication happens within practices of anthropology evolving mexican-maya artisans, Mexican professionals of tourism, entertainment, museum and archaeology and practices of anthropology developed under projects in both sides with financial support from the united states and Mexico as binational efforts through usa universities and sometimes regional spaces, meaning, Mexico locals from which the concept of transculturation  is referred now not as much on an immediacy cultural issue but defined around questions about the nature of such anthropology itself as a kind of practice

   In this sense concepts such as for example the one of cultural contact is out of date and unusefull, this concept, in fact is usually referred in anthropology to a remote archaic and ancient time containing the memories of the first cultural contacts between White migrants evolved in the colonial time and autochthonous, pre-colonial Amerindians populations of the land, whence we are in this case very far and outside of that precolonial kind of first contact interactions, the Mexicans, and the Mayas who are evolved within this practices are already transculturated subjectivies and identities derived from the transformation of Mexico as a new transcultural formation of identities and the self and as such subjectivities who experienced the two redundancy of transculturation already discussed, in this sense, the additional concept of transculturation defining the practice of anthropology in case are to them without doubt and out of discussion a form of transcultural redundancy of the thirst grade

   At the same time it is enough interesting the fact that simultaneously such a practice means also a transcultural redundancy to the united states American anthropologists evolved in it. Indeed, starting from considering my previous analysis on how Mexico or aspects of Mexican culture are echoes and resonances inside united states culture as something experienced in subjectivity from the usa American side as a redundancy inside transcultural processes defined usa identity, it is highly easy to recognize how to anthropologist as such both youngers such as students and a mid-age, such as those with who I theorized and discussed the foundation of this anthropology –quetzil, Lisa, Logan, Martinez, Seligman, etc—the concept of transculturation used to define this anthropology practices as transcultural ethnography is itself evolving redundancies to their own identity formations now redoubled within what quetzil define as double sensations, as something about the nature of that anthropology it self

   Seen from this perspective nothing as recalling the concept of cultural contact seem to be of pertinence here, instead of that, what looks to be pivotal within this anthropology is the way it is calling to the forefront as a kind of to use my own concept –lab of performativity and anthropology---experimental conditions to explore multiethnic learnings and intercultural learnings between several redundant levels, layers and stratus of transculturally since indeed we must recognize relevant levels of cultural differences in between such layers, this is then more an issue of cultural translation than one about cultural contact, nothing as the idea of as a first time cultural contact is here in play.

   This is nothing like with the mexican.mayas of tourism professionals, of archeology museum professionals and of the Archaeological parks and community vendors and artists, being in contact with pre-colonial identities, all the contrary, it is about Mexican.mayas who experienced the large data process of transculturation defined Mexico as a new cultural formation and about the new transcultural identities merging from the trans nationalization of economy, tourism and financial markets of short datas, people to who this transcultural anthropology means a redundancy on what them already experienced and know, while, of course, evolving too the process of transcultural redundancies experienced by usa anthropologists certainly new and unknown to this Mexican-Mayas and mayas-mexicans but not without considering that since such an anthropology is focused on how the institutions of archaeology are itself producing images of cultural memories and the tourism market having impact on the ways to self-revisit the past and guaranty the cultural reproduction of tradition, between other issues focused by this anthropology, it stablishes itself as a site of multiethnic and intercultural learning on both sides ways to discuss the formations of the self 

    In a few words, as much as this second transculturation that made possible this anthropology meaning a current, synchronic and contingent transcultural formation entail with tourism and transnational markets, presuppose forms of intercultural communication and multiethnic learnings, this is nothing else than a non-repetitive repetion to both, anthropologists from usa and mexican-mayas from Mexico, on both cases, the second contingent and current transculturation presuppose the former data longer one on both sides, united states and Mexico thus as to be as current interaction non-repetitive, it is on the one hand a repetition of previous former transculturation and it is not at the same time a repetition since it is evolving the interaction between new forms of subjectivity within a practice of anthropology constrained by objective forms of existence that include united states universities, binational finantiation and Mexican local supports

   Without doubt process of translation of cultural differences are contingent to this interactions since we have inscriptions of many kinds on both sides, the inscriptions that the mexican-mayas and mayas-mexicans have on the way they have mean and typify former practices of anthropology with similar characteristics in its differences with local practices of anthropology developed by Mexican and Mayas on themselves as well as the inscriptions this local practices of mexican-mayas anthropology have on their own, all this need cultural translation

  What we are discussing about here is my concept of stratus now defined as an stratifications to be analyzed and discussed on the concept of transculturation an skein needed to be untailed

   On the one side we can’t discuss this practices of anthropology without taking in consideration the discussed above, the fact that Mexican culture is not estranger or exogenous to united states culture, meaning, the fact that all united states person, overall people from south area near to Mexico, experience in our own cultural identity transcultural processes of that regions in which Mexican culture is an important component participated in that transculturation’s, meaning that in a first level of stratification we must recognize that we as united states people including usa natives bring in our own cultural identities  the inscription of what Mexican culture mean inside that identity

  Now well, this is not a way to mean miss regarding cultural differences between for example, the sense of it by united states people from the south of Texas and a Mexicans, differences are there too

   On the other side, if we speaks of an anthropology in which we recognize us as transculturals, meaning, were subjectivity is not arriving as a pre-established cultural conformation which stay equal after that, but were we accept as anthropologists that our own cultural identity and our own self is culturally transformed as result of intercultural and multiethnic learning and permeability, we might thus say that we are speaking on a modality of anthropology in which we have two stratuses of transculturation from the united states point of view, the former one we bring with us in respect to Mexico inside united states culture and the another one intensified with the immersion in the Mexican-maya cultural reality and as such the anthropological practice must recognize itself sited within the intercultural learning that transculturation evolve considering here the concept no as focus in transculturation in culture but in transculturation of anthropology, in the possibility to speak of an anthropology transcultural itself

   However, at the same time we must recognize that in defining such anthropology that it is not estrange or exogenous also to the processes of transculturation’s experienced by Mexicans in both sense the large date one and the short data recent one contingent to economy trans nationalization and its intercultural consequences and that as such it is also a transcultural redundancy to Mexicans, something that comes to name something the Mexican already lived and know, something that was already in Mexican culture too

  The former is not a way to meaning unrecognizing that the interactions resulting from mutual multiethnic learnings derived from the unfolding of this modes of anthropology spatialization and development, have empirical consequences natural to its own consistency as a professional practice, it have a lot of empirical consequences in the modality of anthropology both theory and practice

   This concept of transcultural redundancies I have proposed have the objective and purposiveness to clarfy at the level of sensations, feeling, sensibilities and subjectivity the major play of cultural translation around and under this practices a level of cultural translation that goes beyond the literal translation of idioms between English, Spanish and Maya while of course presupposing it too

   An example of this cultural translation is started by setting aside the concept of cultural contact, we must in fact choice in this case between avoiding that concept or we must commit ourselves to replace its meaning by redefining it semantically as to be far to its original meanings in anthropology, we need in fact a meta theoretical anthropology to commit ourselves with such new levels of stratification as to translate several dimensions of transculturation’s redundants in between as forms of non-repetitive repetitions or repetitions without identity

    The richness and plenty sense of this anthropology to us from the united states is out of discussion but we must also value the sense of it to Mexicans and Mayas and in that sense I think that the benefits are out of discussion too

   Specifically on  this regard I think that if we pay attention to the situation by longer time cumulated with local and national anthropology on this same issue, meaning forms of anthropology practices by Mexicans from Mexico on the same issues, we will observe that as much as we must recognize that Mexican and Maya anthropologists have in advance and as vintage to have an inside on this issues at the same time, local and national anthropology are highly limited, constricted, constrained by many stereotypes and clichés on the issue and theme clearly produced by the exceeded level of institutionalization the issue have received in a canonical and official sense. 

    The possession of the issue by highly and excessive level of institutionalization have created an environment of hieratization that usually have produced isolations and incomunication between things afforded as separated when we well known as this transcultural anthropology is showing that all that –tourism markets, museum archaeology practices, tourism events, artifacts and furniture of Maya culture artesanies and community ways to revisit themselves are highly related and mutually evolved and as such this practices of anthropology are of benefic to Mexico since because of its own conditions of possibility to be economically and culturally possible, it is exploring ways to set in relation things usually unconnected, disatended and surrounded by an environment of estancamiento at the local level

Notes

See my concept of non-repetitive repetitions discussed at my paper the eclipse of evocation, Houston, 97, at Stephen a Tyler paper Evocation, the unwriteable, a response to Abdel Hernandez San Juan, rice university, sep 9 as well as at my paper the dialectique of evocation in my book thinking science

Bibliography

Hernandez San Juan Abdel, Rethinking Urban Anthropology, book