From: ale-AT-mali.mic.cl (alessandro fornazzar)
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:55:01 CST
Subject: transculturation




I would like to thank Professor John Beverley for sharing his and the Latin
American Subaltern Studies Group's work and also Radhika Gajjala for 
providing this opportunity for discussion.

After reading Professor Beverley's discussion paper, I was left with the
feeling that the paper's initial question, "what is the point of importing
into Latin American Studies a problematic elaborated under other cultural
and historical circumstances," was not adequately dealt with.

I think that one of the reasons for this is that in this discussion paper
a very diverse group of thinkers and texts are umbrellaed under the term 
transculturation.  Profesor Beverley's criticisms of the concept seem to 
be based on one particular definition of it: Angel Rama's.  I remember 
reading Fernando Ortiz's _Contrapunteo cubano del tabaco y el azucar_ and
marvelling at how a book about sugar and tabaco could spark so much of my
interest and open up so many potential horizons for study.  While Angel
Rama's book _Transculturacion narrativa en America Latina_ -which dealt 
with subject matter that is of primary interest to me- left me feeling 
ambivalent.  Its one of those cases where something was definitely lost in 
the translation.

So my question is: does the move to decentralize literature in Latin American
Studies necessarily mean abandoning transculturation in favor of models like 
Subaltern Studies or British Cultural Studies?  Or perhaps what we need to do 
is decentralize Angel Rama from transculturation?

Alessandro Fornazzari
Programa de Postgrado
Facultad de Filosofia y Humanidades
Universidad de Chile