Región andina: la interculturalidad germinal

Cultural dynamics of globalization are likely to be conceived of in terms of cultural homogenization through threatening impacts of “global forces” on “local cultures”. Concern about the loss of cultural diversity in the course of global interconnectedness is represented in the discourse of cultural imperialism, which was especially popular in the 1970s and early-1980s. Generally, the discourse of cultural imperialism understands increasing cultural traffic through globalization as an imposition or dominance of Western culture over the rest of the world. The current world order seen from this perspective is characterized by Western

cultural domination,116 leading to the progressive elimination of cultural difference in the long run. Thus, cultural flows are only assumed in one direction, namely from the center to the periphery or from the West to the remainder of the globe (Inda and Rosaldo 2008:15). Despite being aware of asymmetry in global cultural interactions, anthropologists in general are critical of the argument presented in the discourse of cultural imperialism, providing a nuanced analysis of the cultural dynamics of globalization (Tsing 2000:339, 342, Inda and Rosaldo 2008:28f.). Concerned with intricate movements of people, goods and information crossing national boundaries, Hannerz (1989, 1996), Kearney (1996b) and Appadurai (1996) also demonstrates ways to capture global interconnections without reducing them to the ubiquitous presence of “western” cultural influences.

With his notion of “global ecumene” discussed in the previous section, Hannerz explores cultural interconnections across the globe primarily based on center-periphery relationships by which the world system in political and economic terms has commonly been defined since Immanuel Wallerstein (1974). The center-periphery framework of understanding the global order assumes asymmetries in power, with the dominant center exercising influence over the periphery, as Hannerz puts it: “When the center speaks, the periphery listens, and on the whole does not talk back” (1989:67). Taking the center-periphery conceptual pair as a starting point for analyzing global cultural interactions, Hannerz considers that cultural flow across the globe is indeed affected by “a structure of asymmetrical, center/periphery, relationships” (1992:261). However, indicating asymmetries in the global social organization of meaning, he argues that the center-periphery relationships of culture are not a mere reflection of political and economic power as the discourse of cultural imperialism suggests (1989:67); instead, as a macro-anthropologist of culture, he points to a more intricate organization of world cultural flow that cannot be captured alone within a framework of a center-periphery structure “with just a handful of all-purpose centers” (1989:69). For instance, the existence of various

influential regional centers as well as reverse cultural flows from the periphery to center just illustrate the complexity of the process, implying that the globalization of culture cannot simply be conceived of as Westernization (Hannerz 1989:68f., cf. Inda and Rosaldo 2008:20-28). In addition, Hannerz scrutinizes the widespread fear of cultural homogenization, questioning the quality of the evidence for it. From his perspective, the mere presence of foreign cultural products such as imported TV programs does not offer much insight into its cultural impacts as it tells us little about what sense the people make of it (1989:72). In the process of reading cultural texts, audients do not remain passive consumers of imported cultural products, but rather they play an active part in the construction of meaning. As the interpretation of foreign media exemplifies, the sheer visibility of Western cultural influences around the globe alone does not attest the scenario of world cultural synchronization, as these cultural forms have a tendency to become “customized”117

according to local conditions of receptions (Inda and Rosaldo 2008:18-20). Calling into question the deterministic view represented in the discourse of cultural imperialism, Hannerz proposes a metaphor of creole cultures to capture global cultural interactions with an unpredictable outcome. Borrowing creole concepts from linguistics, he conceptualizes creole cultures as “the confluence of two or more widely separate historical currents” basically interacting in a center/periphery relationship118

(1992:264). The process of creolization is considered a “creative interplay” of center and periphery in which the periphery indeed “talks back” (1992:265). With his concepts of creole cultures and creolization, Hannerz emphasizes a creative and open-ended character of global cultural processes that cannot simply be understood in terms of “a constant pressure from the center toward the

117 _{Inda and Rosaldo use the term “customization” to refer to “the process of interpreting foreign cultural forms}

according to local conditions of reception”. They explain their preference of the term “customization” by stating that it is less ideologically loaded than other terms designating the process such as “creolization” (Hannerz 1992, see later in the section) or “indigenization” (Appadurai 1990, see later in the section) (2008:40).

118

Although stressing the intricate organization of world cultural flow, Hannerz holds onto a center-periphery framework of culture contact. He considers “the organization of world by way of center/periphery relationships” to be unlikely to change. However, he admits that as the world order changes, the constellation in the

center-periphery relationship is not necessarily stable with some peripheries becoming centers and some old centers moving in the other direction (1992:266f.).

periphery” (1992:265) as the discourse of cultural imperialism dictates.

Pointing to the highly complex order of global cultural economy, Appadurai is also critical of the simplistic view of globalization provided by the discourse of cultural imperialism. As he puts it: “The globalization of culture is not the same as its homogenization, (...)” (1990:16). As Hannerz refers to an interactive character of global cultural processes with his concept of creolization, Appadurai also considers that the reception of introduced cultural forms entails the work of reinterpretation. Analyzing the Indian appropriation of English cricket, he demonstrates how the elite sport of English origin has become detached from its Victorian value framework to finally emblematize Indian nationhood. For Appadurai, Indian passion for cricket illustrates that even “hard” cultural forms119

brought by colonization can become indigenized and decolonized. Drawing from this example, Appadurai argues that indigenization should be understood as a product of “public experiments with the means of modernity” (1996:90, 113). Like Hannerz’s concept of creolization, Appadurai’s notion of indigenization underlines a creative and experimental work of reinterpretation involved in cultural interactions. However, as already addressed in the previous section, Appadurai’s approach differs from Hannerz’s idea of creole cultures, which are conceptualized as results of culture contact organized in the center-periphery relationship. It is true that – like Hannerz – Appadurai counters the common association of globalization with worldwide cultural convergence, pointing to the creative act of indigenization. However, he also refers to a highly contentious nature of the process, defining “the tension between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization” as “the central problem of today’s global interactions” (1990:5). In the course of globalization, “a variety of instruments of homogenization”120

can be used to mobilize cultural differences for articulation

119

Appadurai makes a distinction between “hard” and “soft” cultural forms. In his definition, “hard” cultural forms are characterized by a close linkage of embodied practice to value and meaning and as such they are not easily susceptible to reinterpretation. On the other hand, “soft” cultural forms are considered to be more open to reinterpretation as embodied performance can more easily separated from meaning and value. Representing puritan values, cricket is categorized as a “hard” cultural form by Appadurai (1996:90).

120 _{Appadurai refers to “armaments, advertising techniques, language hegemonies, and clothing styles” as}

of group identity (1990:16f.). According to Appadurai, this “globalized production of difference” (1996:199) might also have a negative side, having the potential to result – for example – in ethnic violence, which will be further discussed later in the section and in chapter 2.2.4.2.

The discourse of cultural imperialism can also be challenged from another perspective. The complexity of global processes is not only manifested in the above-mentioned work of customization of introduced cultural forms, but also in reverse flows from the periphery to the center. Especially in the course of “the new immigration” after 1950, it can be noted that the so-called “core” or the “West” itself becomes increasingly heterogeneous, as pointed out by urban anthropologists and sociologists working in old centers of the world economy such as New York City or London. The transformation of the Western metropolises – above all owing to transnational migration – is referred to as the “peripheralization at the core” (Sassen-Koob 1982) or “the implosion of the Third World into the first” (Rosaldo 1988:85). In these cities, the global north-south divide often translates into internal differentiation within the urban space. In a similar way, the dissolving distinction between city (center) and countryside (periphery) can be transformed into segregation within the city, which makes the conceptual opposition between rural-traditional and urban-modern increasingly obsolete. Kearney associates this compression of horizontal space with the decline of modernism and developmentalism as it dissolves the spatial distinction between the center and periphery onto which the temporal counterpart of modern and tradition has been mapped (1996b:117). Declaring the end of anthropology’s modern phase, Kearney considers that the “global implosion” (1995:553) also poses an epistemological question concerning the Self and the classification of “Others” in anthropology. As the spatial bases of the differences between the Self and “Others” gradually become destabilized, Kearney envisions global anthropology – which reflects the complex processes of production of difference in an interconnected world – to overcome the dualism between “our own society” and “the Other”. Instead of exoticizing

“Others”, global anthropological theory should depict “the intimate ways in which ‘they’ and ‘we’ are imbricated in global contexts that determine all of our identities” (1996b:119, cf. Gupta and Ferguson 1992).

Like Kearney, Appadurai also makes use of the trope of implosion to move beyond the primordialist perspective on ethnicity. However, while Kearney speaks of the “implosion” to call for the reconceptualization of anthropological representation in general, Appadurai primarily applies the concept to analyze modern ethnic movements (1996b:139-157). He suggests a model of implosion as a suitable approach to contemporary ethnic confrontations, countering the common connotations of explosion. According to Appadurai, the widespread conception of ethnic movements as an explosion of group sentiments is often related to the naturalizing view of ethnicity. In the primordialist argument, a strong sense of group identity in these movements is considered to draw upon the same kind of sentiments that bind small groups such as those based on kinship or its extensions. It is assumed that this kind of collective conscience – rooted in some distant past – can be ignited in certain historical and political circumstances, eventually to explode into explicit collective fury. Such a perspective can also be identified in the popular discourse that associates ethnic movements – especially in a destructive form – with tribalism and anachronism. In its efforts to explain ethnic violence, naturalizing the conception of ethnicity often becomes linked to the dictum of development in the modernization theory. It means that ethnic sentiment conceived in terms of primordialism is seen as a potential threat to civil society, which is to be developed out of existence by means of modernization programs (1996:140f.). However, contrary to this assumption, Appadurai observes the intensification and spread of ethnic consciousness in the contemporary world. Therefore, he argues that the primordialist thesis is incapable of capturing the emergence of “new ethnicities” that are often characterized by large size, nationalist aspirations and violence

(1996:139). Appadurai considers modern ethnicity to be “culturalist”121

as it is based upon the conscious mobilization of cultural differences instead of being the sheer extension of the sentiments of family and kinship. For the concept of culture, it implies that culture seen as “the diacritics of group identity” should increasingly be conceptualized as “the process of naturalizing a subset of differences” in the era of mediation, migration and globalization. Taking the example of Indian cricket – as “a large-scale form that comes to be inscribed on the body” (see pp.79 for further information) – Appadurai argues that this process of naturalization follows the reverse order compared with the popular extensionist notion of ethnic identity assumes (1996:13-16). Applied to ethnic violence, it signifies that the sentiments leading to such events can only be understood within “large-scale formations of ideology, imagination, and discipline” (1996:149). In this way, exploring the articulation of ethnicity in the contemporary world, Appadurai emphasizes the imprinting mechanism that operates from the macro to the micro rather than the other way around (1996:148). Accordingly, his conception of modern ethnicity can rather be characterized by a top-down approach (cf. Olwig 2000:178), albeit which clearly distinguishes itself from that taken in the discourse of cultural imperialism. Instead of assuming unidirectional influences from the center, Appadurai considers the dynamics of ethnicity in terms of “the dialectics of implosion and explosion over time” (1996:157), which is supposed to result in “globalized production of difference” rather than cultural homogenization (1996:199).

Building upon a comparative analysis of Tsing (2000), this section thus far has presented contributions of Hannerz (1989, 1996), Kearney (1996b) and Appadurai (1996) to theories of global interconnections. Different globalisms envisioned by these authors relate to their respective focal knowledges as they are concerned with varied research subjects as well as

121

Designating a feature of modern ethnic movements, Appadurai prefers the term “culturalism” to avoid the substantial connotation of the word “culture”. As he notes, when the “culture” is used to account for violent social movements in particular, it often becomes associated with “tribalism”, which should supposedly be overcome by development (1996:15, 141). With the use of the term “culturalism”, Appadurai aims to counter this “primordialist” view, underlining the dynamic and politicized aspect of what is commonly referred to as “culture” (1996:12-15).

regions. Drawing from the comparison, Tsing concludes that these diverse perspectives on the interconnected world are all valid and can exist “whether in competition or alliance, in mutual acknowledgement or erasure” (2000:344). Pointing out that people’s experiences of globalization are in fact quite diverse, Tsing questions the assumed opposition of “local” diversity versus “global” homogenization. Arguing rather for “global” diversity, she calls for anthropological theories of globalization that take into account multiple understandings of the global, instead of representing globalization as a single transcultural process (2000:352).

The following section elaborates on the above-presented discussion and focuses on the aspects of cultural consequences of globalization that appear to be especially relevant for considering the situation of indigenous languages in the present age.