Master of Arts Thesis
Euroculture University of Udine (Home)
University of Groningen (Host)
September 2012
WORLD MUSIC AND EUROPEAN IDENTITY
THE TRANSCULTURAL CHARACTER OF THE WOMAD
FESTIVALS
Submitted by: Alexey Severin Student number: s2145162 e-mail: AlexeySeverin@gmail.com Supervised by: Prof. Kristin McGee Prof. Giordano Vintaloro Udine, 12 September 2012MA Programme Euroculture Declaration
I, Alexey Severin hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “World Music and European Identity: The Transcultural Character of the WOMAD Festivals”, submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within it of works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the List of References.
I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.
Signed ………
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 5
INTRODUCTION 6
CHAPTER 1: EUROPEAN IDENTITY DISCOURSE IN THE CONTEXT OF
TRANSCULTURALISM: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9
1.1. European identity discourse 10
1.1.1. Conceptualizing identity in antiessentialist terms 10
1.1.2. The European identity construction 13
1.1.3. Towards a more open conception of European identity 17
a. “top-down” vs. “bottom-up” 17
b. Global perspective 18
c. Otherness: inclusion vs. exclusion 19
d. Cosmopolitanism and transculturalism 20
1.2. From Multiculturalism to Transculturalism 23 1.2.1. Distinguishing between multiculturalism as idea and as policy 23
1.2.2. Evolution of the ideas of cultural dynamics 24
1.2.3. Transculturalism as a form of cultural appropriation 27 1.2.4. Prospects of transculturalism for the European identity formation 29 CHAPTER 2: THE WORLD MUSIC DISCOURSE FROM A
TRANSCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE 33
2.1. The concept of world music 33
2.1.1. Origins of the term 33
2.1.2. Music in a globalized world 35
2.1.3. World music and unequal power relations 37
2.2. Difference, otherness and exoticism 44
2.2.1. The authenticity myth 45
2.2.2. Difference as a more complex phenomenon 47
CHAPTER 3: WORLD OF MUSIC, ARTS AND DANCE:
TRANSCULTURALISM IN PRACTICE 55
3.1. What is WOMAD? 56
3.1.1. History of WOMAD 56
3.1.2. Geography of the festivals. Global meets local 59
3.1.3. Management and finances 61
3.1.4. Peter Gabriel as a major driving force 63
3.1.5. WOMAD Politics 65
3.1.6. WOMAD as a new social movement 66
3.1.7. WOMAD and world music 67
3.2. WOMAD as a space of transcultural encounter 69 3.2.1. Introduction to other cultures through aesthetics 69
3.2.2. Encounters among the audience 70
3.2.3. Transculturation and identity expression through music 73 3.3. WOMAD as a model for transcultural society: Shaping European identity 78
CONCLUSION 82
PREFACE
Music has always been my passion. Being a music fan practically since infancy (as my parents were playing records for me when I was still in the cradle; besides children’s songs, the first records that I actually remember were of Louis Armstrong, The Beatles, Rick Wakeman and Andrew Lloyd Webber), I always tried to be musically explorative, searching for something new, or delving deeper into the styles I liked. As I was growing up, I began to realize that besides aesthetics music is capable of conveying various ideas, be it abstract or concrete. Despite the fact that my speciality has nothing to do with music, I always wanted to make a research on how music can affect daily lives of the people. I was very glad to find out that the Euroculture program allows to freely choose not only the topic, but virtually the area of study for the MA thesis, thus I have decided to take advantage of the opportunity.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the rise of intolerance and xenophobia can be observed in various European member-states. European leaders one after another claim the failure of multiculturalism. Although it should be read as a failure of the concrete policies of multiculturalism rather than of the idea itself, such claims cause much tension in the society. Traditionally, the immigrant Other represents a suitable scapegoat to blame for societies internal problems. At the same time, the mentioned tensions concern not only the relations between host societies and immigrants, but also between member-states. These tensions appear to be especially intensified by the recent economic crisis. With the member-states blaming each other for the economic problems, as well as the European Union itself as one of the sources of these problems, the future of the EU is in question. On the other hand, the successful continuation of EU integration, as based on the rather xenophobic idea of “Fortress Europe,” does not seem a better alternative. Thus the need to promote tolerance applies to both internal and external relations of the EU. It seems necessary – and especially necessary in times of crisis – to find out on what premises (besides the now-unsteady economics) the European integration can stand. Another sphere (often overlooked in public debate in comparison to economics and geopolitics) is culture. For a long time, academics and politicians have had heated debates about European identity. Introduced into the EU’s political agenda in 1973,1 it still does not seem to have a coherent conception. I am going to focus on such a notion of European identity that denies the idea of a homogenous Pan-European identity or a xenophobic Fortress Europe, but promotes diversity, dialogue and cooperation with the wider world. Among numerous mechanisms of identity-building, in my thesis I am going to focus on a particular one – music. Not merely a type of leisure, music represents a powerful instrument of identity-shaping.2 Operating through aesthetics, it affects not only the logic, but first of all the emotions of an individual, his/her subconsciousness, which
1 European Commission, “Declaration on European Identity,” in General Report of the European
Commission, Brussels: European Commissions, December 1973.
2 Liana Giorgi et al., European Arts Festivals: Strengthening Cultural Diversity (Luxembourg:
makes it at least no less effective than, say, a political speech. My research concentrates on the genre known as “world music.” World music is an umbrella term that can have many interpretations, but is most often used to signify a wide variety of musics from all over the world, a variety that can include traditional, classical or modern music from different countries that is not covered by already established categories of Western academic and popular music. A more cosmopolitan interpretation considers it as practically all the music in the world. World music is widely considered to relate to internationalism,3 as well as – if more controversially – to globalization.4 Though the term itself is criticized as imprecise, generalizing and ambivalent, the phenomenon of global exchange of musical traditions while maintaining and underlining diversity is a very interesting one and can be put in opposition to the homogenizing notion of globalization. The focus on local traditions that are represented and interact on a global scene can be considered as an example of glocalization. World music today has become a part of the music industry and competes with Western popular genres, which, on the one hand, leaves it open to criticism and, on the other hand, provides further opportunities to promote tolerance and cultural diversity. It can be viewed as a space of cultural encounter, where it can either reinforce the boundaries of difference or lead to the emergence of new hybrid, transcultural identities.
In my thesis I investigate what role world music plays in the processes of European identity formation. Since the reality of world music is extremely wide and cannot be covered in its entirety within a single research project, I will limit the scope of my research to the WOMAD festivals. WOMAD, which stands for World of Music, Arts and Dance, is the world’s largest (which is proved by the Guinness Book of Records5) international network of world music festivals originating in 1982 in the UK. The festival idea was derived by the famous rock musician and political activist Peter Gabriel, and appears to follow not only his aesthetic ideas, but also his political views, such as the promotion of human rights and anti-racism. Thus, more specifically the aim
3 Liana Giorgi, ed., Deliverable 3.1. European Arts Festivals: Cultural Pragmatics and Discursive
Identity Frames. Main Report, July 2010, 77, accessed 24 April 2012. http://www.euro-festival.org/docs/Euro-Festival_D3.pdf.
4 Simon Frith, “The Discourse of World Music,” in Western Music and its Others: Difference,
Representation, and Appropriation in Music, ed. Georgina Born and David Hesmondhalgh (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 309; Philip V, Bohlman, World Music: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), xi; Timothy D. Taylor, Beyond Exoticism: Western Music and the World (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007), 13.
of this research is to examine how the WOMAD festivals as the concrete manifestations of world music and WOMAD can play their role in shaping European identity. While providing a complex analysis of WOMAD as a network, I will mainly use the examples from its first main historical and ideological event – WOMAD UK, especially since its relocation to Charlton Park in 2007.
I will approach my research of the connections of world music and European identity from the point of view of transculturalism as my main methodological basis. Transculturalism can be shortly described as “seeing oneself in the other.”6 According to Wolfgang Welsch, it is the most adequate concept to describe cultural dynamics today, as opposed to the classical notion of separate cultures, interculturalism, and multiculturalism.7 The sources on transculturalism and other forms of cultural interactions include the writings by Richard A. Rogers, Donald Cuccioletta, Richard Slimbach, Manju Jaidka, and Melanie Pooch. I am going to study various viewpoints on European culture and European identity with the help of such authors as Gerard Delanty, Bo Stråth, Chris Rumford, Lisanne Wilken, Anthony Pagden and Laura Cram. The world music discourse will be analyzed both from positions within ethnomusicology and as a commercial phenomena, drawing from a body of works by the authors including Philip V. Bohlman, Reebee Garofalo, Steven Feld, Hugo Zemp, Martin Stokes, Veit Erlmann, Simon Frith, Timothy D. Taylor, David Byrne, Jo Haynes, Peter Jowers, J. Macgregor Wise, and Pedro van der Lee. Besides the mentioned concepts, I will also touch upon the topics of essentialism/antiessentialism, cosmopolitanism, glocalization, otherness, cultural appropriation, and cultural encounter.
Studying the WOMAD festivals, I will use the information provided on their websites in order to understand the self-image of WOMAD. I will also research Peter Gabriel, including his biography, his political activism, and his projects, including the NGOs “Witness” and “The Elders,” using information from the respective websites, as well as news articles. I am also going to examine the line-ups of WOMAD Charlton Park with the time-frame from 2007 till 2012, using the artists’ biographies provided by the
6 Donald Cuccioletta, “Multiculturalism or Transculturalism: Towards a Cosmopolitan Citizenship,”
London Journal Of Canadian Studies, Volume 17 (2001/2002): 1.
7 Wolfgang Welsch, “Transculturality - the Puzzling Form of Cultures Today,” in Spaces of Culture: City,
website. In order to examine the image of WOMAD that forms in the eyes of the audience and the media, I will study forums, social networks, blogs, as well as news articles. In addition, in the study of the WOMAD festivals I will use some of the empirical material of the Euro-Festival project, as well as some of their findings wile making my own conclusions. Euro-Festival, or Art Festivals and the European Public Culture is a European Commission funded project aimed at researching the correlations between the European arts festivals (including WOMAD) and European identity.8 Considering the structure of the thesis, it is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter I outline the various European identity debates, examining their relation to the construction of otherness and focusing on more open and antiessentialist interpretations. I trace the evolution of the concepts of cultural dynamics towards the notion of transculturalism. In the second chapter I will provide an overview of the world music discourse from the positions of transculturalism. I will position the concept into the framework of a wider globalization debate, providing a critical analysis of the interpretations of musical globalization in terms of unequal power relations such as cultural imperialism. I will also focus on the dependence of the understanding of world music on the notion of otherness, which can be viewed in either exclusive or inclusive terms. I will seek to come up with a more or less balanced approach to world music, trying not to under- or overestimate both critical and celebrative connotations of world music. In the third chapter, I will study the WOMAD festivals and their relation to European identity. After providing an overview of the history of WOMAD, its various dimensions, including the dichotomies global and local, aesthetic and political, and cultural and commercial, I will analyze the festivals as spaces of transcultural encounters taking into account various dimensions of such encounters. Finally, I will come up with a synthesis of all the previous findings in order to understand how WOMAD and world music can affect the process of European identity-building.
CHAPTER 1: EUROPEAN IDENTITY DISCOURSE IN THE CONTEXT OF TRANSCULTURALISM: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In order to analyze the role that world music and the WOMAD festivals can play in the process of European identity-formation a theoretical framework is needed. The concepts of European identity and transculturalism are very complex and multisided and involve a number of other concepts needed to understand them, thus mere definitions would not be sufficient and a detailed analysis seems useful. The first chapter of the thesis outlines this framework focusing on the notion of European identity and the evolvement of the conceptions of cultural dynamics, unfolding towards the notion of transculturalism as the most suitable concept to date for describing cultures and their interactions.
Before analyzing the notion of European identity, I am taking a glimpse on the notion of identity as such. Then I proceed to the notion of European identity with its variety of interpretations and will try to find a conception that is more flexible and open to the ongoing changes in contemporary society. Next, I trace the evolution of the ideas of cultures and their interactions towards the notion of transculturalism and provide arguments for it as being the most adequate conception of cultures today. Finally, I seek to apply the notion of transculturalism to the process of formation of European identity.
1.1. European identity discourse 1.1.1. Conceptualizing identity in antiessentialist terms
Identity as cultural and social activity can be seen as being performative, as a discourse or as a narrative, and is expressed in concrete forms through the acts of communication and of cultural meaning. In accordance with this, Gerard Delanty defines identity as “the expression of how an individual or group sees itself.”9 Professor Delanty is a British social and political scientist specializing in global studies, and social changes in
9 Gerard Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity” (paper presented at the conference “The
Europe.10 He argues that identities are not single and isolated but multiple and overlapping.11 This characterization already allows for drawing preliminary parallels with the notion of transculturalism12 that will be analyzed later in this chapter. Identity formation occurs from two directions simultaneously: as a part of self-formation of an individual and as a result of what other people impose on the individual.13
Cultural sociologist J. Macgregor Wise in his book Cultural Globalization: A User’s
Guide classifies the ideas of identity into four categories: essentialism, antiessentialism,
strategic essentialism, and strategic antiessentialism. 14 He briefly describes and evaluates each of the concepts. Essentialist views claim that groups have authentic and natural identities and characteristics, thus these groups are unable to change (are “trapped” by them). “Biology is destiny,”15 as Wise summarizes this approach. The anti-essentialist approach argues that identities have no biological basis. This approach, however, does not claim that the social and cultural categories such as race or gender are illusions. Such categories act as social constructs, but their effect becomes very real when, for example, they get essentialized and become basis for discrimination. That is why Wise criticizes the essentialist views of identity. However, according to him, sometimes an appeal to essentialist identity can be useful. It is so when somebody claims essentialist identity to organize in a political struggle. In this case strategic essentialism takes place, which is a way of expressing one’s identity as essential while in fact it is not (“because we are all hybrids”16), but such expression may help to gain social bonds in a political struggle and to create common ground for claiming one’s rights. A different approach striving for similar aims is strategic antiessentialism, to which Wise pays especial attention in his book. Following George Lipsitz, Wise describes strategic antiessentialism as taking on another identity as a mask or a disguise. One is doing this in order to express something about oneself, something that he/she cannot express through his/her current identity. Richard A. Rogers, following Clifford,
10 “Prof Gerard Delanty,” University of Sussex, accessed 18 June 2012,
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/101974.
11 Gerard Delanty, “The European Heritage from a Critical Cosmopolitan Perspective,” The London
School of Economics and Political Science, LEQS Paper No. 19 (2010): 4-6, accessed 15 March 2012, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/europeanInstitute/LEQS/LEQSPaper19b.pdf.
12 Cuccioletta, “Multiculturalism or Transculturalism,” 1; Welsch, “Transculturality,” 194.
13 J. Macgregor Wise, Cultural Globalization: A User’s Guide (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008),
13-15.
also argues for the antiessentialist notions of identity and culture.17 He suggests describing them not as separate entities, but as relationships and interactions. Enforcing boundaries causes segregation, conflicts and a belief that one’s identity is inevitably predefined by the place he/she was born. This way we are supposed to be different by birth. Such ideas can easily foster racism and xenophobia. Antiessentialism instead deprives boundaries of their unshakeable status and is instrumental for the erasure of ethnic, racial, gender and other stereotypes.
Wise highlights the notion of territory as a key concept in the process of identity-formation. According to him, each territory draws on culture, however it is not fully representative of it. He marks out ephemerality as an important characteristic of territory. Territories must be constantly maintained, and while there are some of them that are more permanent because of physical fixation by certain markers such as architecture, many others are open to change for being created through symbols and habits. 18 In other words, we could say that Wise approaches territories as social constructs.
According to Wise, identities get caught up in the forces of territorialization that are competing with each other. Territorialization is seen as two processes that are deterritorialization and reterritorialization. 19 While deterritorialization erases or suppresses markers of a territory, reterritorialization imposes a territory on another area that is itself already territorialized. The process of reterritorialization is reworking and different use of already existing cultural symbols. 20 We could also call it recontextualization of cultural symbols.
Next, Wise characterizes territorialization as being closely related to the exercise of power, namely the power of controlling a space exercised by an institution, and the individuals’ and groups’ power to avoid such control.21 In relation to the main topic of his book, Wise identifies the struggles that cultural globalization contains as mostly
17 Richard A. Rogers, “From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation: A Review and Reconceptualization
of Cultural Appropriation,” Communication Theory 16 (2006): 492.
18 Wise, Cultural Globalization, 11-13. 19 Ibid., 15-16.
struggles over cultural power and the ability or inability to translate between different kinds of power, thus transforming cultural power into a political or economic one.22 These notions of territorialization and interconnectedness between culture and power seem relevant to the EU case. The EU is involved into continuous process of partial deterritorialization of the member states, which already posses their territory and identity, and their Europeanization (reterritorialization) by assigning new symbols and meanings. As mentioned above, economic and political power can be nourished by cultural power. The EU/EC always paid much attention to the political and economic goals of the European integration, but its cultural aspects seem to be overlooked in the beginning. In order to make up for it, the concept of European identity was introduced. As Delanty notes, the project of European integration has made a shift from merely political and economic integration to social integration of peoples and cultures, yet unsuccessful.23
1.1.2. The European identity construction
Though the problem of European identity in various forms and terms has been raised many times in history,24 in the context of the EU’s (then EC’s) political agenda the concept was introduced in 1973,25 as Finnish historian Bo Stråth points out,26 and since its first appearance in this official role, it has been very ideologically loaded as well as heatedly debated. The concept as such is widely accepted, but its precise content and meaning are not. Following Gerard Delanty, Stråth argues that the concept of European identity rather expresses contrived notions of unity than actual identity and that to a certain extent it even approaches ideology.27 In the referenced work, which is Inventing
Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (1995), Delanty indicates that when cultural ideas are
used in the process of political-identity building they can become ideologies. He defines ideology as “all-embracing and comprehensive system of thought, а programme for the
22 ibid.,18.
23 Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 1.
24 See: Anthony Pagden, “Europe: Conceptualizing a Continent,” in The Idea of Europe: From Antiquity
to the European Union, ed. Anthony Pagden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 33-54.
25 “Declaration on European Identity.”
26 Bo Stråth, “A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept,” European Journal of Social
Theory 5, 4 (2002): 388.
future, and а political doctrine for the mobilisation of the masses.”28 Under the pressure of ideology the individual is deprived of the possibility of choosing his/her identity. In his more recent works including The European Heritage from a Critical Cosmopolitan
Perspective (2010) Delanty notes that European identity is in crisis since 1991.29
At the conference in 2012 dedicated to the issues of European identity, Delanty points out that the main identity current in today’s Europe is rather oppositional than supportive. He views the uncoupling of democracy and capitalism as the background to this process. The technocratic project of European integration proves unlikely to be embraced by democratic identities, he claims, emphasizing at the same time the ambivalence of such statement since these democratic identities are partly the products of the European project, which is seen by him as the extension of the nation-state rather than its negation. He concludes that the result is a fragmentation of European identity into multiple projects that include those that bring new kinds of social integration as well as those that oppose such integration.30
Considering integration, an interesting idea was expressed at the same conference by Chris Rumford, a British political sociologist specialized in transformations of European borders, globalization and cosmopolitanism.31 He argues that Europe (and European identity) is possible without integration, since Europe as a cultural entity has already been constructed, but this construction had nothing to do with the EU project.32 Concerning anti-systemic ideas, Delanty names two main refutations of the possibility of a European identity. 33 The first point of view is that European identity is nonexistent at all, or if it does exist, it is not as strong as national identities. The second refutation is the one associated with postcolonialism. It claims that the European heritage is always Eurocentric and that it is inevitably bound to its colonial past, or that it is so much
28 Gerard Delanty, Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1995),
5.
29 Delanty, “The European Heritage,” 1.
30 Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 7.
31 “Professor Chris Rumford,” Royal Holloway, University of London, accessed 15 June 2012,
http://pure.rhul.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/chris-rumford_5901db04-0f97-411a-87b5-787a7c7dd95a.html.
32 Chris Rumford, “The problem of European identity” (paper presented at the conference “The
Development of European Identities: Policy and Research Issues,” Brussels, Belgium, 9 February 2012), 2.
divided from within that there can be no real unity, if such unity would be desirable at all.34
As an example of such criticism of the European identity concept partly connected to both negative points of view addressed by Delanty, we could take Bo Stråth’s reflections on the need of reconceptualization. Stråth demonstrates, following Gerold Gerber, the paradoxicality of the EU project and of the European identity concept. European identity is seen by them as paradoxical because while it is supposed to overcome nationalism and to promote solidarity, being a construction of collective identity it needs a definition of the Other. This construction of the Other with its need for exclusion comes into contradiction with humanistic ideals of equality, freedom and pluralism. Stråth points out that a new conceptualization of cultural belonging is needed, and its key elements would include ambivalence, transition and being more historically informed. He believes that the concept of European identity is not mediating these elements properly since it is inclined to essentialism and is “narcissistic.”35
Stråth deduces that the concept of European identity has reached its historical limits and became outdated. He argues for new concepts that would be less Eurocentric and would rather incorporate a more global perspective. “Global” here is not associated with globalization, which Stråth sees as synonymous with Americanization. 36 It seems here, however, that Stråth’s criticism is aimed not at the possibility of a European identity as such but rather on its current interpretations, especially technocratic ones37 that can be described as “top-down”38 or “from above.”39 Although it does not seem really necessary to abandon the European identity concept completely, Stråth’s reflections about less Eurocentric and a more global perspective seems warranted.
Delanty addresses both European identity refutations he mentions (it nonexistence or weakness, and its inseparability from its colonial past), and this may be taken as an answer to Stråth. Regarding the first argument that is nonexistence, or at best weakness,
34 Ibid.
35 Stråth, “A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept,” 397-399. 36 Ibid.
37 Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 7. 38 Rumford, “The Problem of European Identity,” 1-2.
39 Lisanne Wilken, “Anthropological Studies of European Identity Construction,” in A Companion to the
of a European identity, Delanty states that the current situation is not the absence of a political identity as such but a plurality of opinions about the future of European integration.40 The second argument he addresses assesses European identity from a wider perspective than just a political one. In this case the criticism is based on the conviction that the “very idea of the European past is inseparable from Europe’s legacy of colonialism.”41 According to Delanty, this position ignores the critical and post-universalist strand in European culture of the past two hundred years. He claims that European heritage exists within a tradition of the interrogation of the past and the genesis of a post-traditional or anti-essentialistic view of culture.42 Here the opinions of the two scholars coincide. Stråth even makes reference to Delanty considering the anti-essentialist notion of culture as a “floppy concept.” Stråth emphasizes the need not to essentialize Europe and to see it as an open concept. In his opinion, however, the concept of European identity does not succeed in realizing this idea.43
A good illustration of the manifoldness of the European identity concept can be seen in Delanty’s distinction of at least three different things (or levels) that European identity can signify: 1) processes of individuals’ identification with “Europe;” 2) collective identity; 3) societal or cultural identity.44 This distinction is taken from his 2012 conference paper, and it is expands the way he defined European identity in 1995 when he used to describe it in the following way: “а collective identity that is focused on the idea of Europe, but which can also be the basis of personal identity.” 45 Today he does not seem to stick that much to the interpretation of European identity as a collective identity.
According to Delanty, European identity in the sense of identification of individuals with Europe has little or even nothing to do with the EU.46 Relevant in this context seems Rumford’s thesis saying that Europe has already been constructed without the EU.47 Delanty says that this identification is a product of globalization and that it exists
40 Delanty, “The European Heritage,” 2. 41 Ibid.
42 ibid., 2-3.
43 Stråth, “A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept,” 398. 44 Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 2-3.
45 Delanty, Inventing Europe, 13-14.
alongside national identities as complementing them and thus constituting changeable hybrid forms.48
As mentioned above, European identity can also exist as a collective identity of a collective actor.49 Unlike collective identities, societal identities are less distinct and more ambivalent, contested and multiple. Delanty associates them to a certain extent with national identities, while in the case of Europe such societal identities are seen as connected with European cultural heritage,50 and thus he suggests calling this level the European cultural identity. This level is different from collective and individual identities because both require an actor,51 which is absent in this case, Delanty argues, denying the existence of such collective actor as “European people.” In addition, the scholar suggests seeing this notion not as an identity in the proper sense but rather as a cultural model, by which societies interpret themselves.52 Regarding Europe, this cultural model is seen as a collection of ideas and a general awareness of the European heritage that can serve as the basis for identities.53 It is noted by many scholars that European identity’s relation with national identities is not merely coexistence or competitiveness, but involves much more complex interconnections. European identity is considered to transform54 or even to encourage55 national identities.
1.1.3. Towards a more open conception of European identity a. “Top-down” vs. “bottom-up”
The gap between the Eurocrats’ designs and actual social processes is widely recognized and is seen by the scholars as a major problem. Criticizing the conventional divisions associated with Europe, Chris Rumford stresses the need to address the new division, “top-down Europe” versus “bottom-up Europe,” which emphasizes the
48 Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 2. 49 Ibid.
50 For the notion of the European heritage see: Gerard Delanty, “The European Heritage from a Critical
Cosmopolitan Perspective.”
51 Delanty, “The European Heritage,” 5. 52 Ibid.
53 Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 2-3.
54 Stråth, “A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept,” 390; Delanty, “The
Fragmentation of European Identity,” 4-5; Rumford, “The Problem of European Identity,” 1.
55 Laura Cram, “Identity and European Integration: Diversity as a Source of Integration,” Nations and
cleavage between Europe’s elites and the people.56 Lisanne Wilken calls these forms of European identity formation as engineering “from above” and evolvement “from below.”57 Constructions of Europe “from above” can take various forms, such as construction in academic discourse,58 in the EU institutions,59 through cultural policies,60 or in the populist imagination,61 which can be reactionary and is often associated with far-right politics. The “top-down” approach to identity-formation is widely criticized by scholars.62 On the contrary, the “bottom-up” approach to the construction of the European identity (or “identities,” as Rumford writes) is seen as desirable.63
b. Global perspective.
As mentioned above, Stråth criticizes the European identity concept for Eurocentrism and the lack of a global perspective. He is not the only one to think in this way. Rumford also mentions the lack of such perspective and indicates that even when it is spoken of, cosmopolitanism is often interpreted as a European value and not as a universal one. According to him, there is a tendency in modern scholarly literature to describe the EU as cosmopolitan without actually examining the meaning of this. This way cosmopolitan ideas get reduced merely to EU borders.64 Delanty seems to avoid this trend criticized by Rumford, firstly, by showing that the EU is not yet cosmopolitan but can become such,65 and secondly, by providing what he calls a critical cosmopolitan approach66 and characterizing cosmopolitanism with the notions of openness and dialogue.67 We could use such interpretations to reply to Stråth’s rejection of the
56 Rumford, “The Problem of European Identity,” 1.
57 Wilken, “Anthropological Studies of European Identity Construction,” 125. 58 Rumford, “The Problem of European Identity,” 2.
59 Wilken, “Anthropological Studies of European Identity Construction,” 126; Rumford, “The Problem of
European Identity,” 2.
60 Wilken, “Anthropological Studies of European Identity Construction,” 126. 61 Rumford, “The Problem of European Identity,” 2.
62 Ibid., 5.
63 Ibid., 1; Wilken, “Anthropological Studies of European Identity Construction,” 126; Delanty, “The
Fragmentation of European Identity,” 7-8; European Commission, Directorate-General for Research & Innovation, Working Document for the Conference “The Development of a European Identity / European Identities: Policy and Research Issues” 9 February 2012, compiled by Andreas Obermaier, edited by Robert Miller, and layouted by Corina Schwartz, http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/events-194_en.html (accessed 17 April 2012), 38-40.
European identity concept and suggest that instead of being the grounds for discarding the concept, a global perspective could instead become the grounds for its further development. Let us discuss one of the main problems concerning the development of such perspective – the notion of otherness.
c. Otherness: inclusion vs. exclusion
One of the major issues of identity-formation is the problem of otherness. I have already mentioned Bo Stråth’s criticism of the European identity for construction of the Other, which is exclusive. This problem is recognized by many scholars dealing with the issues of European identity. Delanty also admits that the existing notions of European identity are connected to the construction of otherness and based on myths of superiority of European civilization.68 According to him, the European self was constructed by reference to the non-European Other and to its own self as being its distant irrecoverable past represented by classical culture.69 Europe’s self-construction as modern and democratic can be also referenced to its more recent militarist, nationalist and economically backward past as being the Other, as noted by Rumford with a reference to Risse.70
Thus, a notion of the Other that would define it by means of inclusion rather than alienation,71 and would transgress established boundaries and promote intercultural dialogue72 seems necessary. Stråth argues that in order to achieve this Europe needs to be more active not in an aggressive Eurocentric sense but “as a mediator and a bridge-builder in a global world.”73 Delanty views the concept of universality as useful for formation of an inclusive notion of otherness. By universality he means not uniformity and intolerance but plurality and difference. Difference is seen not in negative terms unless it causes a negation of otherness.74 A Europe based on exclusion should be replaced by a Europe based on participation,75 he claims, which in this respect draws his thinking closer to Stråth.
68 Delanty, Inventing Europe, 14. 69 Delanty, “The European Heritage,” 9.
70 Rumford, “The Problem of European Identity,” 1. 71 Delanty, Inventing Europe, 12.
72 Stråth, “A European Identity: To the Historical Limits of a Concept,” 397. 73 Ibid.
d. Cosmopolitanism and transculturalism
As a solution, Delanty suggests a critical cosmopolitan approach to European identity. Let us stop for a second and take a brief look at the concept of cosmopolitanism as such. The history of the concept can be traced as far back as antiquity, and since then the notion of cosmopolitanism had been used in all possible ways. Diogenes, when asked where he came from, answered that he was “a citizen of the world [kosmopolitês]” and thus is widely recognized as the first philosopher to openly make such a statement. However, it is doubtful that he included any positive connotations in this term, since his motivation was the refusal to subordinate to the authorities of Sinope. In the sixteenth century, Erasmus of Rotterdam used the idea of cosmopolitanism to advocate tolerance and world peace. In the eighteenth century, while Anacharsis Cloots advocated the creation of a world-state, Immanuel Kant’s cosmopolitanism represented the idea of a global moral community and the universality of human rights, but without building a global political community. Inheriting such variety of cosmopolitanisms in history, in the contemporary world there is an abundance of ideas about cosmopolitanism focused on moral unity, political unity or global market.76
Delanty, in his turn, interprets cosmopolitanism not as striving for transnationalization but as the “exploration of exchange, dialogue and the space of the encounter.”77 He believes such an approach can lead to a new level of democracy, since democracy is based on relations between citizens and it is the encounter that shapes politics.78 The approach proposes: 1) openness to the world, 2) self-transformation in light of the encounter with the Other, 3) the exploration of otherness within the self 4) a critical approach to globality, and 5) critical spaces between global and local.79 In the light of these features used by Delanty to describe critical cosmopolitanism we could propose the notion of transculturalism as relevant for the discourse.
However, speaking about the notion of cosmopolitanism we cannot ignore its shortcomings. The concept can be interpreted in so many ways that it proves to be very ambivalent and disputable. Notably, the problems that cosmopolitanism implies are
76 “Cosmopolitanism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last updated 28 November 2006, accessed
22 August 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism/.
77 Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 7-8. 78 Ibid.
recognized not only by uncompromising critics (like Robert J. Delahunty, an American law professor and ex-official of the US Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 80 ) of the concept but also by its supporters (including Oxford ethnomusicologist Martin Stokes and Craig Calhoun, a renowned social scientist holding professorship at New York University, presidency of the Social Science Research Council, and, since September 2012, the directorship of the London School of Economics and Political Science81). First of all, cosmopolitanism is widely criticized as being elitist.82 Besides this popular point of criticism, Delahunty claims that cosmopolitanism is strictly opposed to nation-state, is inclined to global governance, and criticizes it on these premises. Seeing international bodies as indispensable for cosmopolitanism, he points out that existing supranational bodies (including the EU) already exhibit a democratic and legitimacy deficit.83 Notwithstanding the controversial figure of Delahunty himself, who is particularly notorious for his so called “torture memorandums” that were trying to justify the aggressive foreign policy of president Bush,84 his opinion about cosmopolitanism is given here because Delahunty’s reading of it reflects some of the issues that are very popular among the critics of the concept. For example, it is a very popular idea among the critics of cosmopolitanism to see it as necessarily calling for a world-state. In response, its advocates say that the idea of cosmopolitanism first emerged as a metaphor of a way of life rather than a political unity, and that even those advocates who call for a certain kind of political organization rarely imply an actual world-state.85
With a less radical perspective towards cosmopolitan ideas, Stokes admits that while being useful the concept is at the same time “messy and compromised,”86 and is often
80 “Delahunty, Robert,” University of St. Thomas, accessed 21 August 2012,
http://www.stthomas.edu/law/facultystaff/faculty/delahuntyrobert/.
81 “Craig Calhoun,” New York University, accessed 22 August 2012, http://www.nyu.edu/ipk/calhoun/. 82 Robert J. Delahunty, “Nationalism, Statism and Cosmopolitanism,” University of St. Thomas Legal
Studies Research Paper No. 12-08 (2012): 12-13, 15, accessed 17 April 2012,
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/international/documents/Delahunty.pdf; Craig Calhoun, “The Class Consciousness of Frequent Travelers: Toward a Critique of Actually Existing
Cosmopolitanism,” The South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 101(4) (2002): 874; Martin Stokes, “On Musical Cosmopolitanism,” Macalester International Vol. 21 (2008): 10-11.
83 Delahunty, “Nationalism, Statism and Cosmopolitanism,” 15.
84 Roger Cuthbertson, “St. Thomas Law Professor Robert Delahunty's 'Torture Memos,’” TC Daily
Planet, Free Speech Zone, 26 August 2009, accessed 22 August 2012,
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/08/26/st-thomas-law-professor-robert-delahuntys-torture-memos.html.
85 “Cosmopolitanism.”
linked with orientalism87 and with consumerism, and is historically problematic and sometimes gendered.88 Calhoun reveals Western-centrism of the concept89 and speaks of “soft cosmopolitanism”90 that does not challenge capitalism and Western hegemony, while he admits that some form of cosmopolitanism is needed.91 He states that cosmopolitan democracy cannot be imposed from above and should “grow out of the life-world” with emphasis on social solidarity.92 Concerning the existing notions of cosmopolitanism, again, he sees it as elitist.93 Following Calhoun and the whole context of our discussion, we could interpret this widely recognized elitist notion of cosmopolitanism as a “top-down” approach, while what is really needed is a “bottom-up” growth of social solidarity and participation. For this “bottom-“bottom-up” evolvement it seems appropriate and useful to appeal to the notion of transculturalism. 94 Understanding transculturalism as transgression of boundaries and going beyond one’s culture also makes the concept relevant for cosmopolitanism.95 The concept can also be helpful in overcoming the ambivalence of the notion of cosmopolitanism.
As a confirmation of relevance of the concept of transculturalism for the current discourse, we can appeal to Stråth who, suggesting Europe play a more active role as a bridge-builder, states:
Slogans like “cultural diversity and a common heritage” or “unity in diversity” would expand from terms used in a European self-reflection to take on global dimensions. In the long run the intercultural dialogue should rather become a transcultural dialogue transgressing established boundaries. This active Europe would be an alternative to a military active Europe.96
Let us now discuss the notion of transculturalism in more detail.
87 Ibid., 12. 88 Ibid., 9.
89 Calhoun, “The Class Consciousness of Frequent Travelers,” 873. 90 Ibid., 893.
91 Ibid.
92 Ibid., 875-880. 93 Ibid., 874.
94 Cuccioletta, “Multiculturalism or Transculturalism,” 1.
95 Manju Jaidka, “India is my Country but the World is my Home: Transculturality through Literature”
(paper presented at the first Conference on Applied Interculturality Research, Graz, Austria, 7-10 April 2010), 5.
1.2. From Multiculturalism to Transculturalism
First it should be noted that the concept could be referred to as transculturalism, transculturality and transculturation interchangeably.97 It would be hard to discuss the notion of transculturalism without another closely related concept – multiculturalism. Although the former is sometimes put into contrast to the latter,98 it seems more appropriate to speak about the concepts in terms of interconnectedness and heredity. 1.2.1. Distinguishing between multiculturalism as idea and as policy
The term “multiculturalism” represents a whole body of thought that orbits around ideas about how society should properly respond to cultural and religious diversity. It is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of disadvantaged groups including ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, the disabled and other groups, but most often is referred to in the context of ethnic minorities and immigration.99 Multiculturalism can be viewed as descriptive, as it describes actual demographic pluralism in society; it can imply a political philosophy recognizing and supporting cultural pluralism; also, it often takes a form of public policy of managing cultural diversity. In public debates, it is usually the policy of multiculturalism that is being discussed.
The word was first used in 1957 in relation to Switzerland. In the 1971, it was introduced as the official policy in Canada, and in comparison with the American “melting pot” could be described as a “salad bowl” or a “mosaic.” Throughout subsequent years multiculturalism in various forms was adopted as an official policy in many Western countries.100 Being used as an official policy of many European states, lately multiculturalism is widely criticized by the heads of the same states. A major backlash on multiculturalism can be observed.
97 Jaidka, “Transculturality through literature,” 2; Melanie Pooch, “Is Transculturality the New
Multiculturalism? How the Originally Latin American Concept of Transculturation Explains the Phenomenon of (Trans)cultural Multiplicity” (paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Global Studies, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 18-20 July 2011).
98 Welsch, “Transculturality,” 197-198.
99 “Multiculturalism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last updated24 September 2010, accessed 21
August 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/#PolBacAgaMul.
100 “Multiculturalism,” Martin Frost’s web site, accessed 22 August 2012,
However, one could question if the claimed failure is a failure of the idea of multiculturalism as such or merely an inability to implement it by political means. Donald Cuccioletta, a Canadian political scientist and historian, emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the policy of multiculturalism and social multiculturalism. Taking Canada as an example, he reveals that when people are speaking of multiculturalism they are referring to its concrete interpretation in a form of a specific policy,101 which is often far from perfection. The scholar states that as a result of wrong interpretation of multiculturalism policy in Canada, culture and identity came to be defined by the officials, thus identity becomes a political issue instead of social one.102 Cuccioletta writes that Canada being a nation of immigrants has always been a nation of social multiculturalism.103 We can assume that the same formula is valid for the EU. Cuccioletta argues that multiculturalism as a social phenomenon is an objective fact produced by people moving around the world and not by a government decision, thus it existed long before the policy of multiculturalism. He positions social multiculturalism and transculturalism close to each other with the latter representing the goal for the former and the basis for a cosmopolitan citizenship.104
1.2.2. Evolution of the ideas of cultural dynamics
German philosopher Wolfgang Welsch105 has adequately developed the concept of transculturalism, as well as traced the evolvement of the ideas of cultural dynamics. Welsch sequentially criticizes what he regards as obsolete notions of culture, namely the classical concept of isolated cultures, interculturalism and multiculturalism, building up to the notion of transculturalism, which he views as the most appropriate concept representing cultural dynamics today.
The traditional concept of single cultures was in its most complete form was developed by Herder in the eighteenth century.106 Welsch attacks all three main elements of the concept, namely social homogenization, ethnic consolidation and intercultural delimitation, as irrelevant for the present time, while their validity in the past is also put
101 Cuccioletta, “Multiculturalism or Transculturalism,” 10. 102 Ibid.,7.
103 Ibid., 10. 104 Ibid., 1, 8.
105 “Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Welsch,” Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, last updated 08 August 2012,
accessed 22 August 2012, http://www2.uni-jena.de/welsch/.
in question. For the first element, he recognizes modern societies as highly heterogeneous and unable to achieve uniformity. Regarding ethnic consolidation, he sees such folk-bound definitions as fictional and inclined to xenophobia. He also criticizes the idea of outer separation, of artificial boundary-construction. As a result, the concept appears as requiring inner homogenization and outer delimitation, and thus is seen by Welsch as both descriptively invalid and normatively harmful. He considers that one of the main reasons of xenophobia and conflicts is the fact that many people still adhere to this interpretation of cultures.107 This notion of cultures represented as isolated islands, static and homogenous, seems to draw heavily on the essentialist ideas. Next in Welsch’s hierarchy of concepts is interculturalism or interculturality. According to him, this concept acknowledges that treating cultures as separate islands leads to conflicts. The concept of interculturalism thus seeks ways in which these cultures could recognize and understand each other. However, the idea of separate cultures remains unchallenged here, and on these grounds, the concept is also dismissed by Welsch.108 The philosopher depicts the concept of multiculturalism (or multiculturality) as very similar to interculturalism. The main difference, according to Welsch, is that multiculturalism as opposed to interculturalism considers different cultures within one society. As with interculturalism, he criticizes multiculturalism as being based on the same traditional concept of separate cultures, which does not favor mutual understanding and transgression of boundaries. Moreover, the scholar claims that multiculturalism even furthers such barriers, leading to the ghettoization of cultures.109 Welsch summarizes his criticism of the conceptions of isolated cultures by pointing out that if they were true than one could not solve the problem of their coexistence and cooperation. He contends that today’s cultures cannot be described anymore by such characteristics as homogeneity and separateness, and that it is incorrect to view them as islands or spheres. Instead, they have taken a new form that “passes through classical cultural boundaries” and thus should be referred to as transcultural. Cultures today are characterized by permeations and mixing. Therefore, Welsch considers that unlike the mentioned conceptions transculturality (or transculturalism) formulates these features of
107 Ibid., 194-196. 108 Ibid.
modern cultures110 and thus is the most descriptively and normatively appropriate concept for describing them.111
The idea of transculturalism can be expressed in a short formula: seeing oneself in the other. Cuccioletta believes that this idea has an interactive and egalitarian content as it relies on the forces of society and not politicians, and takes down physical and psychological boundaries. 112 As mentioned above, this allows for associating transculturalism with the “bottom-up” approach to identity building that is praised by many scholars, including studies of European identity.113
Richard Slimbach, an American scholar specializing in global studies, sociology, anthropology and international education,114 claims that transculturalism is already here. According to him, because of the development of transportation, telecommunication technologies, tourism and student exchange, massive immigration and international trade, people around the world are connected into increasingly complex relationships. According to Slimbach, everything moves across borders with relative freedom, with these global processes being felt locally,115 which lets us recall another related concept – glocalization. However, despite Slimbach’s enthusiasm, we could argue that while the mentioned processes are important conditions for the development of transculturalism, it would be way too early to proclaim that “‘transcultural’ era is upon us,”116 since, even if so, most people do not seem to realize it yet.
It is widely recognized that Cuban anthropologist Fernando Ortiz first introduced the notion of transculturalism in 1940,117 originally labeled by him as “transculturation.” He introduced the term in order to be able to better describe the process of transition from
110 Ibid., 198 111 Ibid., 194.
112 Cuccioletta, “Multiculturalism or Transculturalism,” 1.
113 Rumford, “The Problem of European Identity,” 1; Wilken, “Anthropological Studies of European
Identity Construction,” 126; Delanty, “The Fragmentation of European Identity,” 7-8; European Commission, Policy and Research Issues, 38-40.
114 “Richard Slimbach,” Azusa Pacific University, accessed 21 August 2012,
http://www.apu.edu/clas/faculty/rslimbach/.
115 Richard Slimbach, “The Transcultural Journey,” Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad volume XI (August 2005): 205, accessed 23 March 2012,
http://www.frontiersjournal.com/documents/RSlimbachFrontiersAug05.pdf.
116 Slimbach, “Transcultural Journey,” 205.
117 Cuccioletta, “Multiculturalism or Transculturalism,” 8; “Transculturation and Cultural Hybridity,”
GIRA – Interdisciplinary Research Group on the Americas, accessed 15 March 2012,
one culture to another. According to him, the phase of acculturation, or the acquiring of a new culture, takes place simultaneously with the phase of deculturation, which is uprooting of a previous culture. The result is not merely a combination of the compounding elements, but a new phenomenon – the phase that he defined as neoculturation.118 The process of transculturation is ongoing and irreversible process of exchange. 119 Identities should be defined not as one-dimensional but recognized in rapport with the other; they are multiple, thus a person resembles a mosaic.120
1.2.3. Transculturalism as a form of cultural appropriation
Transculturalism may be associated with the notion of cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation became the subject of the research by Richard A. Rogers, an American scholar specializing mainly in cultural studies and communication.121 According to him, the concept of transculturalism shows the relational nature of culture and interprets it as not an entity simply participating in appropriation, but as a phenomenon that is constituted by acts of appropriation. It is important that a neutral, non-evaluative notion of appropriation should be used in order to avoid bias and to perform a balanced analysis. Rogers refers to appropriation as the “use of one culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture — regardless of intent, ethics, function, or outcome.”122 Thus, it is not necessarily appropriation that serves only the interests of the one who performs it. However, cultural appropriation is still an active process, a process of making another culture’s elements one’s own. This process can occur in different ways depending on and at the same time influencing many factors, such as voluntariness, power relations and cultural boundaries. According to this, Rogers distinguishes four types of cultural appropriation. These types are: exchange, dominance, exploitation and actual transculturation.
Cultural exchange for Rogers is a form of cultural appropriation where the exchange of symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals or technologies is mutual and occurs between cultures
118 Fernando Ortiz, Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995),
102-103.
119 “Transculturation and Cultural Hybridity.”
120 Cuccioletta, “Multiculturalism or Transculturalism,” 8; Jaidka, “Transculturality through Literature,”
2-3.
121 “Richard A. Rogers’ Page,” Northern Arizona University, last updated 20 September 2010,
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rar/.
that have more or less equal levels of power. The mentioning of flows of music among his examples is especially relevant to our discussion. He considers such reciprocal exchange as an ideal, yet barely achievable. According to him it is ideal because it involves voluntariness and a balance of reciprocal flows. However, the notion is problematic, and its real-life instances are barely identifiable, since both its fundamental elements, namely voluntary nature and symmetry of power relations, are extremely complicated and can hardly be identified and evaluated with certainty.123
Another form of cultural appropriation analyzed by Rogers is cultural dominance. This form involves one-way imposition of cultural elements of a dominant culture onto a subordinated one.124 This process can also be reversed in a form of cultural resistance, which in cases of imbalance of power can occur in the form of an active appropriation of elements of a dominant culture by a subordinated culture for survival, psychological compensation or opposition.125 This form can be viewed as an example of strategic antiessentialism in identity-formation, which Wise scrutinizes in his book.126
Cultural exploitation seems to be the most popular notion of cultural appropriation observed in critical/cultural studies. With cultural exploitation, a dominant culture appropriates elements of a subordinated culture, which is treated as a resource for consumption.127 Such a situation exemplifies what we have already learned from Wise as he links cultural power and other forms of power.128 In the situation in question, culture is used as a vehicle of maintenance of unequal power relations, such as those often referred to as neocolonialism.129
Rogers characterizes it by “cultural elements created through appropriations from and by multiple cultures such that identification of a single originating culture is problematic.” He also describes the process as circular because the ongoing process of appropriation between multiple cultures includes elements that are themselves already transcultural. This concept, according to him, shows the ongoing blending of cultures better then the other mentioned notions of cultural appropriation. He uses the term to
123 Ibid., 478-479. 124 Ibid.
125 Ibid., 483.
126 Wise, Cultural Globalization, 14-15.
127 Rogers, “From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation,” 486. 128 Wise, Cultural Globalization, 18.
