Filozofski vestnik
L etn ik /V o lu m e XXII • Številka/N um ber 2 • 2001 • 59-86
TRANSCULTURALITY:
THE CHANGING FORM OF CULTURES TODAY
W
o l fg a n g
W
elsc h
“W hen we think o f the w orld’s future,
we always m ean the destin atio n it will reach
if it keeps g o in g in the d irectio n we can see it going in now;
it does n o t o cc u r to us
th a t its p ath is n o t a straig h t line b u t a curve,
constantly ch a n g in g d ire c tio n .”
Ludwig W ittgenstein, Culture and Value, 1929
A sim p le q u estio n was occasion for m e a decad e ago to develop th e co n c ep t
o f tran scu ltu rality . I h a d th e im pression th a t o u r p re se n t concepts o f culture
w ere n o lo n g e r su ited to th eir object, today’s cultures. P u t th e o th er way round:
C o n te m p o ra ry cu ltu re s se e m e d to be exhibiting a co n stitu tio n d iffe ren t to
th a t asserted , o r su g g ested by o u r concepts o f culture. So w e’d b e tte r develop
a new c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n o f c u ltu re . This I atte m p t to d o u n d e r the h ea d in g
‘tra n sc u ltu ra lity ’.1
T h e follow ing a c c o u n t com prises fo u r sections: firstly a critique o f the
tra d itio n a l c o n c e p t o f single cultures, secondly a critique o f the m ore re c e n t
c o n c e p ts o f m u lticu ltu ra lity a n d interculturality, thirdly a d etailed discussion
o f th e c o n c e p t o f tran scu ltu rality , a n d fourthly som e fu rth e r perspectives.
T h e c o n c e p t o f tran scu ltu rality , it seem s to m e, is for b o th descriptive an d
n o rm ativ e reaso n s th e m o st a p p ro p ria te to today’s cultures.
1
T he first version o f this c o n cep tio n was published as “Transkulturalität - Lebens­
fo rm en nach der A u flösu n g der K ulturen” (in: Information Philosophie, 2, 1992, pp. 5-20).
It was d ev elo p ed further in “A u f d em W eg zu transkulturellen G esellschaften”, in: Die
Zukunft des Menschen - Philosophische Ausblicke, ed. G ünter Seubold (Bonn: Bouvier, 1999),
pp. 119-144.
W o l f g a n g W k l sc i i
O n e th in g b efo reh a n d : I will certainly, in so m e respects, sch em atize,
extrap o late an d exaggerate the d ev e lo p m e n t w hich I believe can b e w itnessed.
T h e re will b e several things in this to criticize. H ow ever, firstly, if o n e w ants to
say an y th in g at all, th e n o n e m ust e x ag g erate. A n d secondly, e x a g g e ra tio n is
a p rin cip le o f reality itself; to m o rro w ’s reality will b e th e ex a g g e ra tio n o f
today’s; it is this w hich we call dev elo p m en t.
I. The traditional concept of single cultures
W hy d o I th in k th at th e co n v en tio n al co n cep ts o f c u ltu re a re n o lo n g e r
su ite d to th e c o n s titu tio n o f to d a y ’s c u ltu re s? H ow was th e tra d itio n a l
co n cep tu ality o f cu ltu re com prised, a n d w h at are th e new realities w hich n o
lo n g er su b m it to th e old precepts?
1. ‘Culture’ in the tradition
a. F rom a special to a g en eral c o n c e p t o f cu ltu re
‘C u ltu re ’ first d eveloped into a general concept, sp a n n in g n o t only single,
b u t all th e reifications o f h u m a n life, in th e late 17th century. As a g e n e ra l
co n c ep t o f this type, ‘c u ltu re ’ a p p e a re d fo r th e first tim e in 1684 w ith th e
n atu ra l rig h ts scholar S am uel von P u fe n d o rf.2 H e d e n o te d as ‘c u ltu re ’ th e
sum o f th o se activities th ro u g h w hich h u m a n s s h a p e th e ir life as b e in g
specifically h u m a n - in co n tra st to a m erely an im al o n e .s
P rio r to this th e n o u n ‘c u ltu re ’ h a d n o t h a d a n ab so lu te usage such as
this. C u ltu re h ad b e e n a relative ex p ressio n , b e a rin g only o n specific realm s
o r activities. Accordingly, in antiquity, C icero h ad spoken o f the “cu ltu ra an im i”
(“care o f th e sp irit”),4 patristics p ro p a g a n d iz e d th e “c u ltu ra C h ris tia n a e
religionis”/ ’ an d in th e R enaissance, E rasm us o r T h o m as M ore p le a d e d fo r
2
In the secon d edition o f his script De jure naturae et gentium tibri octo (Frankfurt, 2nd
ed. 1684) Pufendorf effected, in several places, the transition from the traditional co n cep t
o f a specific ‘cultura anim i’ to the new talk o f a general ‘cu ltu ra’ (B ook II, Ch. 4, § 1).
Prior to this, h e had already spoken o f “vera cultura” in a letter to Christian T h om asiu s o f
19th January 1663, that is, strictly speaking, m ade absolute use o f the exp ression ‘cu ltu ra’
for the very first time (the letter is printed in: Christian T hom asius, Historiajuris naturalis,
Halle 1719, A ppendix II, Epistola I, pp. 156-166, h ere p. 162).
5 Cf. Sam uel von Pufendorf, De jure naturae et gentium libri odo, II, 4.
4 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tuscutanae disputationes, II, 13.
5 Cf. W ilhelm Perpeet, “Zur W ortbedeutung von ‘Kultur’”, in: Naturplan und Verfallskritik.
60
T r a n s c u l t u r a l iiy : T h e C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
th e “c u ltu ra in g e n ii” - th e cu ltu re o f the inventive spirit.1’ F o r centuries, the
ex p ressio n ‘c u ltu re ’ a p p e a re d only in such com p o u n d s a n d related to specific
realm s o f activity.
W ith P u fe n d o r f‘c u ltu re ’ becam e a collective singular a n d an autonom ous
c o n c e p t w hich now - in a p re su m p tu o u s unification - claim ed to encom pass
th e whole o f a p e o p le ’s, a society’s o r a n a tio n ’s activities. A h u n d re d years
la te r this g lobal c o n c e p t o f cu ltu re o b tain ed th ro u g h H e rd e r - especially in
his Outlines o f a Philosophy o f the History of M an which a p p e a re d from 1784 to
1791 - a fo rm w hich was to re m a in exem plary for the tim e to follow.7,8 M any
a m o n g us still believe this H e rd e ria n co n c ep t o f cu ltu re to b e valid. I t’s n o t
only trad itio n a list m in d s th a t d o this, ra th e r we are presently also witnessing
various revivals o f this co n c ep tio n : they stretch from eth n ic fundam entalism
th ro u g h to H u n tin g to n ’s talk o f “civilizations”.
b. H e r d e r ’s c o n c e p t o f c u ltu re
In term s o f its basic s tru c tu re , H e rd e r’s c o n c ep t is ch aracterized by th ree
d e t e r m i n a n t s : by s o c ia l h o m o g e n iz a tio n , e th n ic c o n s o lid a tio n a n d
in te rc u ltu ra l d e lim ita tio n .F irs tly , every cu ltu re is su p p o sed to m ould the
w h o le life o f th e p e o p le c o n c e rn e d an d o f its individuals, m aking every act
a n d every o b ject an unm istakable instance o f precisely this culture. T he concept
is u n ific a to ry . S e c o n d ly , c u ltu r e is always to b e th e “culture o f a folk",
re p resen tin g , as H e rd e r said, “the flower” o f a folk’s existence.10 So the concept
is folk-bound. T hirdly, a d e c id e d delimitation towards the outside ensues: Every
c u ltu re is, as th e c u ltu re o f o n e folk, to b e d istin g u ish ed a n d to rem a in
s e p a ra te d fro m o th e r folks’ cultures. T h e c o n c e p t is separatory.
Zu Begriff und. Geschichte der Kultur, eds H elm ut Brackert and Fritz W efelm eyer (Frankfurt/
Main: Suhrkam p, 1 9 8 4 ), pp. 21-28, h ere p. 22.
(i Ibid.
7 J o h a n n G ottfried H erder, Outlines of a Philosophy of the History o f M an (New York:
B ergm an Publishers, 1966). T h e work First appeared in four separate parts, each o f five
b ooks, in the years 1784, 1785, 1787 and 1791, published by the H artknoch press in Riga
and Leipzig.
8 Cf. for the history o f the co n c e p t o f ‘cultu re’: Josep h N iederm ann, Kultur. Werden
und Wandlungen des Begriffs und seiner Ersatzbegriffe von Cicero bis Herder (Florence: Bibliopolis,
1941); P erpeet, “Zur W ortb ed eu tu n g von ‘Kultur’”, I.e.; Jörg Fisch, “Zivilisation, Kultur”,
in: Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1992), vol. 7, pp. 679-774; György
M arkus, “Culture: the m aking and the make-up o f a co n cep t (an essay in historical
se m a n tics)”, in: Dialectical Anthropology 18 (1993), pp. 3-29.
9 I shall n o t take a cco u n t o f H erd er’s particularities here, but rather concentrate on
the typology o f his c o n cep t o f culture.
10 H erder, op. cit.
61
W o l f g a n g W ki .s c ii
2. Obsoletefeatures
All th re e elem ents o f this trad itio n al c o n c e p t have b e c o m e u n te n a b le
today. First: M odern societies are d iffe re n tia te d w ithin them selves to su ch a
high d e g re e that u n iform ity is n o lo n g e r constitutive to, o r achievable fo r
th em (a n d th e re are re a so n a b le d o u b ts as to w h e th e r it e v e r h as b e e n
historically). T. S. E lio t’s N e o -H erd erian sta te m e n t fro m 1948, th a t c u ltu re is
“th e whole way o f life o f a people, fro m b irth to th e grave, fro m m o rn in g to
n ig h t a n d even in sleep ”,11 has today b ec o m e an obviously ideological d e c re e .12
M o d ern societies are m ulticultural in them selves, en c o m p a ssin g a m u ltitu d e
o f varying ways o f life a n d lifestyles. T h e re a r e - f i r s t l y - v e r t i c a l d iffe ren c es in
society: th e cu ltu re o f a w orking-quarter, a w ell-to-do re sid e n tia l district, a n d
th a t o f th e a lte rn a tiv e scene, fo r e x a m p le , h a rd ly e x h ib it an y c o m m o n
d en o m in ato r. And there a re -s e c o n d ly -h o riz o n ta l divisions: g e n d e r divisions,
differences betw een m ale a n d fem ale, o r b etw een straig h t, lesbian a n d gay
can co n stitu te qu ite d iffe ren t c u ltu ral p a tte rn s a n d form s o f life. - So alread y
with resp ect to this first point, hom ogeneity, th e trad itio n al c o n c e p t o f cu ltu re
proves to b e factually in ad eq u ate: it c a n n o t co p e w ith th e in n e r co m p lex ity o f
m o d e rn cultures.
Secondly, th e eth n ic consolidation is dubious: H e rd e r so u g h t to envisage
cultures as closed spheres o r a u to n o m o u s islands, each c o rre s p o n d in g to a
folk’s territo ria l a rea a n d linguistic ex ten t. C u ltu res w ere to re sid e strictly
w ithin them selves a n d be closed to th e ir e n v iro n m e n t. - B ut as we know , su ch
folk-bound definitions are highly im aginary a n d fictional; they m u st laboriously
be b ro u g h t to prevail against historical evidence o f in te rm in g lin g . N ations
are n o t so m eth in g given b u t are in v en ted a n d o fte n forcibly e sta b lish e d .13
A nd th e political d angers o f folk-based a n d e th n ic fantasies can today b e
e x p e rie n c e d alm ost worldwide.
11 T. S. Eliot, Notes towards the Definition of Culture (L ondon: Faber and Faber, 19 4 8 ), p.
31.
12 T h e ethn ology o f the 20th century also worked for a lo n g tim e with the n o tio n that
culture is a structured and integrated organic w hole in itself. Ruth B e n e d ic t’s b o o k The
Patterns o f Culture (B o sto n an d N ew York: H o u g h to n M iffin C o m p a n y , 1 9 3 4 ) is
representative of this. From the sixties and seven ties onwards doubts ab ou t this prem iss
were increasingly expressed (see Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation o f Cultures, N ew York:
Basic Books, 1973). Margaret Archer called the “myth o f cultural in tegration ” the dubious
“legacy o f eth n o lo g y ” (M argaret A rcher, Culture and Agency, C am bridge: C am bridge
University Press, 1988, p. 2 ff.).
19
This was effectively n oted by Ernest G ellner and Eric Hobsbawm: “T h e central m istake
com m itted both by the friends and the en em ies o f nationalism is the su p p o sitio n that it is
som ehow natural [...] T he truth is, on the contrary, that there is n oth in g natural or universal
about possessing a ‘nationality’” (Ernest G ellner, Thought and Change, L ondon: W eid en feld
62
TKANSCUl.TURAI.I'IY: TlIK CHANGING FORM OF CULTURES TODAY
Finally, th e c o n c e p t d em an d s o u ter delim itation. Having n o te d th a t “every
n a tio n has its centre o f h ap p in ess within itselfju s t as each sp h e re its c e n tre o f
gravity”,14 H e rd e r typically e n o u g h continues: “Everything w hich is still the
same as my n a tu re , w hich can be assimilated th e re in , I envy, strive towards,
m ak e m y ow n; beyond this, k in d n a tu re has arm ed m e with insensibility, coldness
a n d blindness; it can even b ec o m e contempt a n d disgust."'-' - As you see: H e rd e r
d e fe n d s th e d o u b le o f em phasis o n the own an d exclusion o f th e foreign, the
tra d itio n a l c o n c e p t o f c u ltu re b ein g a c o n c ep t o f in n e r h o m o g en iza tio n an d
o u te r se p a ra tio n a t th e sam e tim e. P u t harshly: It tends —as a co n seq u en ce o f
its very c o n c e p tio n - to a so rt o f cultural racism .1(1T h e sp h ere prem iss a n d the
p u rity p re c e p t n o t only r e n d e r im possible a m utual u n d e rsta n d in g betw een
c u ltu re s, b u t th e a p p e a l to c u ltu ra l id en tity o f this k in d finally leads to
sep aratism a n d paves th e way fo r political conflicts and w ars.17
and N ich o lso n , 1964, p. 150 f.). “N ationalism is n ot the awakening o f nations to selfconsciousness; it invents nation s w here they do n ot exist” (ibid., p. 168). “[...] the national
p h en o m en o n cannot be adequately investigated without careful attention to the ‘invention
o f trad ition ’” (Eric H obsbawm , “Introduction: Inventing Traditions”, in: The Invention of
Tradition, ed. Eric H obsbawm and T eren ce Ranger, Cambridge: Cam bridge Univ. Press,
1983, p. 14).
14 Jo h a n n G ottfried H erder, Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit
[1774] (Frankfurt/M ain: Suhrkam p, 1967), p. 44 f.
15 Ibid., p. 45. H erder continues: “[...] see how the Egyptian hates the sh epherd, the
vagab ond ! how h e despises th e frivolou s Greek! So it is for ea ch two n ation s w hose
in clin a tio n s an d circles o f h a p p in ess clash - o n e calls it prejudice! vulgarity\ insular
nationalism !” (ib id ., p. 45 f.) A gain st this E n lig h ten in g ob jection , H erd er explains:
“P rejudice is g o o d [...] for it m akes for happiness. It forces p eop les to geth er to their centre,
m akes th em firm er at their stem , m ore flourishing in their kind, m ore fervent and then
happier too in their inclinations and aims" (ibid., p. 46). H e further says: “T he least knowing,
m ost prejudiced nation is, so con sid ered , often the first: the age o f w andering desires and
h o p efu l voyages abroad is already illness, flatulence, unhealthy corpulence, death’s apprehension!"
(ib id .).
A type o f racism is - with the island, or sphere axiom - built in, o n e w hich is even
retain ed w herever b iologically e th n ic racism is discarded, that is, where the respective
culture is n o lo n g er d efin ed with recourse to a folk’s nature, but with resort instead to
d efin ition a l substitutes such as nation, state, or even - circularly - to a “cultural n a tio n ”.
For, in changelessly clinging to the autonom ous form o f culture, on e continues to advocate
structurally a kind o f cultural racism. - In a highly regarded speech to the U n esco in 1971,
Lévi-Strauss p o in ted ou t the relevance o f specifically cultural racism. ‘R ace’ is, according
to him , to be u n d erstood n o t so m u ch as the basis, but as a function o f culture. Every
culture, to th e ex ten t that it au ton om ou sly develops itself and delim its itself from other
cultures, tends to cultural racism (C laude Lévi-Strauss, “Race et Culture”, in: Lévi-Strauss,
Le regard éloigné (Paris: P ion , 1983), pp. 21-48, in particular here p. 3 6 ). - For the strategic
fu n ction o f racism in the m od ern state, cf.: M ichel Foucault, “Faire vivre et laisser mourir:
la naissance du racism e”, in: Les Temps Modernes, 46, 1991, no. 535, pp. 37-61.
17
T his separatist com p lex can be form ulated harm oniously. You then say: Every culture
is im m ediate to God. (With this, I am varying L eopold von Ranke’s form ula “every ep och
63
W o lfg a n g W elsch
T o sum this up: T h e classical m o d el o f c u ltu re is n o t only descriptively
unserviceable, b u t also norm atively d a n g e ro u s a n d u n te n a b le . W h a t is called
fo r today is a d e p a rtu re from this c o n c e p t a n d to th in k o f cu ltu re s b e y o n d th e
co n trap o sitio n o f ownness a n d foreignness - “b ey o n d b o th th e h e te ro g e n e o u s
a n d th e ow n”, as A d o rn o o n ce p u t it.18
II. The concepts of multiculturality and interculturality
I now w ant to discuss the m o re re c e n t co n c ep ts o f m u lticu ltu ra lity a n d
interculturality. I will p o in t to the d isadvantageous m a n n e r in w hich - in spite
o f all a p p a re n t progressiveness - they still re m a in b o u n d to th e tra d itio n a l
concept.
1. Multiculturality
In co n tem p latin g the very m u ltitu d e o f d iffe re n t form s o f life w ithin o n e
a n d th e sam e society, th e m u ltic u ltu ra lity c o n c e p t seem s to e sc a p e th e
d ilem m as o f th e c o n v e n tio n a l c o n c e p t o f c u ltu re . B u t in c o n tin u in g to
u n d e r s ta n d th e d if f e r e n t c u ltu re s as b e in g th in g s i n d e p e n d e n t a n d
h o m o g e n e o u s in th e m se lv e s, it still c o n c e p tu a lly c o m p lie s w ith th e
co n v en tio n al u n d e rsta n d in g o f cu ltu re. T h e re in lies its p rin c ip a l deficiency.
T h e c o n c e p t tries to face u p to th e p ro b lem s w hich d iffe re n t cu ltu re s
have living to g eth er within one society. A nd this ce rtain ly does re p re s e n t a
pro g ressio n co m p ared with the o ld d e m a n d s fo r societal h o m o g e n iz a tio n .
B ut fo r its p a rt th e c o n c e p t is in cap ab le o f c o n trib u tin g to th e so lu tio n o f th e
p ro b lem s resulting from plurality fo r th e very re aso n th a t it still sticks to th e
old id ea o f c u ltu re ’s design. This it does, to be su re, n o t w ith re g a rd to th e
erstw hile large cultures, b u t with re sp e c t to th e m any c u ltu re s w ith in society
u p o n w h ich it focuses. It still conceives o f th ese single c u ltu re s as b e in g
h o m o g en eo u s an d well d elin ea te d - th a t is, in precisely th e o ld -fash io n ed
H e rd e ria n style.
O n th e basis o f this con cep tio n , a tem p o ra ry respite in issues o f to lera n ce,
accep tan ce an d avoidance o f conflict b etw een th e d iffe re n t cu ltu ra l g ro u p s
m ig h t b e attain ed , b u t n ever a real u n d e rs ta n d in g o r even a tran sg ressio n o f
is im m ediate to G od’’.) It can also be form ulated realistically, th en you m ust say: in this
way, culture becom es a ghetto.
18
T h e o d o r W. A dorno, Negative Dialektik, in: A d o rn o , Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 6
(Frankfurt/M ain: Suhrkamp, 3rd ed. 1984), p. 192.
64
T r a n s c u l t u r a l iiy : T iif . C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
th e sep aratin g barriers. R ath er the m ulticulturality concept has the supposition
a n d a c c e p ta n c e o f th ese b a rrie rs as its basis. H e n ce it can - con d itio n s in the
US have d e m o n s tra te d this fo r years - even be used to justify a n d rein fo rce
ap p eals fo r d e m a rc a tio n .14 T h e c o n c e p t th ereb y th reaten s to favor regressive
te n d e n c ie s w hich, in a p p e a lin g to cu ltu ral identity (a co n stru c tio n w hich is
m o s t o fte n g a in e d fro m th e im a g in a tio n o f som e y e ste ry e a r), le a d to
g h etto izatio n a n d cu ltu ral fun d am en talism .20 In this way the b u rd e n in h erited
fro m its a n tiq u a te d u n d e rsta n d in g o f culture com es to the fore. C ultures which
are a p p r e h e n d e d in p rin c ip le as b ein g au to n o m o u s an d like spheres cannot
ultim ately u n d e rs ta n d o n e a n o th e r, b u t must ra th e r - according with the logic
o f this a p p re h e n s io n - set them selves a p a rt from o n e a n o th e r; they m ust
ig n o re , fail to reco g n ize, defam e a n d co m b at o n e an o th er. This was, by the
way, shrew dly ex p ressed by H e rd e r w hen h e said th a t spheres o f this type can
only “clash with one another’ a n d th a t th e ir re b u tta l o f o th e r cu ltu re s is a
c o n d itio n fo r th e ir h a p p in e s s .21 In th e c o n te x t o f m u ltic u ltu ra lism , the
«
________________________
10
Cf. D ian e Ravitch, “M ulticulturalism . E Pluribus Plures”, in: American Scholar ( 1990),
pp. 337-354; H ilton Kramer, “T h e prospect before us”, in: The New Criterion, 9 /1 (Sept.
1990), pp. 6-9; J o h n Searle, “T h e Storm Over the University”, in: The New York Review of
Books, 6 D ec. 1990, pp. 34-42; M ulti Kulti: Spielregeln fü r die Vielvölkerrepublik, ed. Claus
L eggew ie (Berlin: R otb uch , 1990); A rthur M. Schlesinger, The Disuniting o f America:
Reflections on a Multicultural Society (N ew York - London: N orton, 1991); D aniel CohnB en d it an d T h om as Schm id, Heimat Babylon: Das Wagnis der multikulturellen Demokratie
(H am burg: H offm ann & Cam pe, 1992); Pluralisme culturel en Europe: Culture(s) européenne(s)
et culture(s) des diasporas, ed. R en é Gallissot (Paris: L ’Harmattan, 1993) ; From Different Shores:
Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America, ed. Ronald Takaki (New York - Oxford: O xford
U niversity Press, 2n d ed. 1994); Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics o f Recognition, ed.
A m y G utm ann (Princeton: P rinceton University Press, 1994); Multikulturelle Gesellschaft:
Modell Amerika, e d . B ern d t O ste n d o r f (M unich: Fink, 1994); W olfgan g K aschuba,
“Kulturalismus: Kultur statt G esellschaft?”, in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 21 (1 995), pp. 8095; Richard B ernstein, Dictatorship of Virtue: How the Battle Over Multiculturalism Is Reshaping
Our Schools, Our Country, and Our Lives (New York: Knopf, 1995) ; Will Kymlicka, Multicultural
Citizenship (O xford: O xford University Press, 1995); David A. H ollinger, Postethnic America:
Beyond Multiculturalism (N ew York: Basic Books, 1995).
20 O n e com p lies with the m axim that cultures are to be their own - and they are
exactly this, above all, w hen contrasted with other cultures and contrasted with a com m on
culture. “Back to the roots” reads the m agic form ula, or “only tribes will survive”. Salm on
R ushdie o n ce articulated a sim ilar danger when talking to his fellow Indian writers: “[...]
o f all th e m any elep h a n t traps lying ahead o f us, the largest and m ost dangerous pitfall
w ould be the ad op tion o f a g h etto mentality. T o forget that there is a world beyond the
com m u n ity to w hich we b elo n g , to con fin e ourselves within narrowly d efin ed cultural
frontiers, w ould b e, I b elieve, to go voluntarily into that form o f internal exile which in
South Africa is called the ‘h o m ela n d ’” (Salm on Rushdie, “Imaginary H om elands” [1982],
in: Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981-1991, London: Granta Books, 1991, pp.
9-21, h ere p. 19).
21 H erder, Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit, p. 46.
65
W o l f g a n g W k i .sc i i
c o n tin u e d in flu en ce o f the old cu ltu ra l n o tio n o f in n e r h o m o g e n e ity a n d
o u te r d elim itatio n m o re o r less logically in d u ces chauvinism a n d cu ltu ra l
separatism .22- A n d it seem s to m e th a t several a d h e re n ts o f th e c o n c e p t d o n ’t
even w ant to solve b u t ra th e r to re in fo rce th e re su ltin g p ro b lem s.
2. Interculturality
A sim ilar reservation seem s to apply tow ards th e c o n c e p t o f in te rc u l­
turality.23 F o r all its g o od in ten tio n s it too co n tin u e s conceptually to d ra g a lo n g
with it th e prem isses o f the trad itio n al c o n c e p t o f cu ltu re : th e in sin u a tio n o f
an island- o r sphere-like co n stitu tio n o f c u ltu res. It d o es re co g n ize th a t this
constitution necessarily leads to in tercu ltu ral conflicts, a n d attem pts to c o u n te r
these w ith in terc u ltu ra l dialogue. I t ’s ju s t th a t as lo n g as o n e goes alo n g w ith
th e p rim ary thesis o f an island- o r sp h ere-lik e cu ltu ra l c o n stitu tio n th ese
problem s will n o t be soluble, because they spring from the prim ary thesis n am ed .
T h e classical co n cep t o f cu ltu re with its prim ary tra it - th e sep aratist c h a ra c te r
o f cu ltu res —creates the secondary p ro b le m o f th e d ifficu lt co e x iste n ce a n d
s tru c tu ra l in ab ility to c o m m u n ic a te b e tw e e n th e s e c u ltu re s. H e n c e th e
resu ltin g p ro b lem s c a n n o t be solved o n th e basis o f this c o n c e p t.24
So, in ju s t th e sam e way as the m u lticu ltu ra lity thesis, the in te rc u ltu ra lity
thesis d o e s n ’t g e t to th e actual ro o ts o f th e p ro b le m , b u t o p e ra te s o n a
su b se q u e n t level, so to speak cosm etically. - B o th th e m u ltic u ltu ra l a n d
in te rc u ltu ra l issues o u g h t to be ad d ressed in a d iffe re n t m a n n e r fro m th e
outset: in view o f today’s p erm e atio n o f cultures.
22 It is n ot en ou gh here to p oin t ou t cu ltu res’ factual endeavours towards d elim itation .
T hese w ould be less cogen t if they were n o t backed up by the m ulticulturality c o n c e p t
and driven into the dead en d o f ghettoization. Cultural terms in flu en ce cultural selfunderstanding.
23 Cf. for this concept Franz W immer, Interkulturelle Philosophie (Vienna: Passagen 1989),
vol. 1; Philosophische Grundlagen derInterkulturalität, ed. Ram Adhar Mall and D ieter Lohm ar
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1993); A rchie J. Bahm , Comparative Philosophy: Western, Indian and
Chinese Philosophies Compared (A lbuquerque, N .M: W orld B ooks revised ed itio n 1995).
24 T h is b ecom es very clear in W ang B in ’s article “R elativism o cu ltu ra le e m etam etodologia” (in: Sguardi venuti da lontano. Un’indagine di Transcultura, eds Alain Le P ichon
and Letizia Caronia, Milan: Bom piani, 1991, pp. 221-241): if cultures are a u to n o m o u s
islands to b egin with (ibid., 222), then a real u n d erstan d in g b etw een th em will first com e
about precisely when this premiss is d o n e away with, w hen that is, the cultural d ifferen ces
de facto n o longer exist (cf. p. 236). T he island-basis creates the p rob lem , w hich it ca n ’t
solve - but from which on e can appreciate that a so lu tio n can only be b ro u g h t closer by
overcom ing the island-thesis.
66
T r a n s c u i . t u r a i . i i y : T iie C h a n g i n g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
*
My criticism o f th e tra d itio n a l co n c ep tio n o f single cultures, as well as o f
th e m o re re c e n t c o n c e p ts o f m u lticu ltu rality a n d in te rc u ltu ra lity can be
su m m arize d as follows: If cu ltu re s w ere in fact still - as these concepts suggest
- c o n stitu te d in th e fo rm o f islands o r spheres, th en o n e could n e ith e r rid
o n e s e lf of, n o r solve th e p ro b le m o f th e ir coexistence a n d co o p e ratio n .
H ow ever, th e d e sc rip tio n o f to d ay ’s cultures as islands o r sp h eres is factually
in c o rre c t a n d n o rm atively deceptive. O u r cultures de facto n o lo n g er have
th e in s in u a te d fo rm o f h o m o g e n e ity an d separateness, b u t are characterized
th ro u g h to th e co re by m ixing a n d p erm e atio n s.2Г' I call this new form o f
cu ltu re s tra n sc u ltu ra l, since it goes beyond the traditional c o n c e p t o f cu ltu re
a n d passes through tra d itio n a l cu ltu ra l b o u n d arie s as a m a tte r o f course. T h e
c o n c e p t o f tran sc u ltu rality - w hich I now w ant to set o u t - seeks to articulate
this a lte re d cu ltu ra l c o n stitu tio n .2,i'27
25
W e are m istaken w hen we co n tin u e to speak o f German, French, Japanese, Indian,
etc. cultures as if th ese were clearly d efin ied and closed entities; what we really have in
m ind w hen speaking this way are political or linguistic com m unities, n o t actual cultural
form ations.
“ T h e prefix ‘trans’ in ‘transculturality’ has a double m eaning. First it d en otes the fact
that the d eterm inan ts o f culture are b ecom in g m ore and m ore cross-cultural. In this
sen se ‘trans’ has the m ean in g ‘transversal’. In the lo n g run, however, this d evelop m en t
w ill in crea sin g ly e n g e n d e r a cu ltu ral con stitu tio n w hich is b ey o n d the traditional,
su p p osed ly m on ocu ltu ral design o f cultures. So, whilst having the m ean in g ‘transversal’
with respect to the m ixed design o f cultural determ inants, ‘trans’ has the sense o f ‘beyon d ’
with respect to the future and com p ared to the earlier form o f cultures.
27
I m ust adm it that I h eld the term ‘transculturality’ for a new o n e when I began
w orking on this topic in 1991. Transversality - which I’d spoken o f previously only with
an eye to q uestions o f reason (for the first time in my Unserepostmoderne ModemeVJeinheim :
VCH Acta hum aniora, 1987, Chap. XI; m ost recently in: W elsch, Vernunft. Die zeitgenössische
Vemunftkritik und das Konzept der transversalen Vernunft. Frankfurt/M ain: Suhrkamp, 1995,
stw 1996) - now in cultural theory too - this was my idea. In the m ean tim e I have learned
that ‘transculturality’ - or at least th e adjective ‘transcultural’ - isn ’t quite so rare after
all. But my usage o f the term d o es not, as is usual in an old er tradition, target transcultural
invariances. With this term I seek far m ore to account for the historically m odified structure
o f today ’s cultures.
67
W o i .f g a n g W e l s c h
III. Transculturality
1. Macrolevel: the altered cut o f today’s cultures
a. N etw orking
Firstly the old h o m o g en izin g a n d sep a ratist id ea o f c u ltu re s has b e e n
su rp assed th ro u g h cultures’ external networking. C u ltu res today are ex tre m ely
in te rc o n n e c te d a n d en tan g le d with each o th er. Lifestyles n o lo n g e r e n d at
th e b o rd e rs of n atio n al cultures, b u t go b ey o n d th ese, are fo u n d in th e sam e
way in o th e r cultures. T h e way o f life fo r an ec o n o m ist, a n ac ad em ic o r a
jo u rn a lis t is no lo n g er G erm an o r F ren c h , b u t ra th e r E u ro p e a n o r global in
to n e. T h e new form s o f e n ta n g le m e n t a re a c o n s e q u e n c e o f m ig ra to ry
processes, as well as o f w orldwide m ateria l a n d im m a te ria l c o m m u n ic a tio n s
systems a n d eco n o m ic in te rd e p e n d e n c ie s a n d d e p e n d e n c ie s . It is h e re , o f
course, th a t questions o f pow er com e in.
A co n seq u en ce a n d sign o f such p e rm e a tio n s is th e fact th a t th e sam e
basic p ro b lem s a n d states o f consciousness today a p p e a r in c u ltu re s o n c e
c o n sid ered to b e fu n dam entally d iffe re n t - think, fo r ex a m p le , o f h u m a n
rights d eb ates, fem inist m ovem ents o r o f ecological aw areness w hich a re
powerful active factors across the b o ard culturally.28A ccording to the o ld m o d el
o f c u ltu re an d its fiction o f d ifferen ce things such as these w ould have b e e n
quite im possible —w hich in tu rn is evidence o f the o bsolescence o f this m odel.
b. H ybridization
Secondly, cu ltu res today are in g e n e ra l ch a ra c te riz e d by hybridization. F or
every c u ltu re , all other cultures have ten d en cially co m e to b e in n e r-c o n te n t o r
sa te llite s. T h is a p p lie s o n th e levels o f p o p u la tio n , m e r c h a n d is e a n d
in form ation. W orldwide, in m ost countries, live m em bers o f all o th e r co u n trie s
o f this plan et; a n d m o re a n d m o re th e sam e articles - as ex o tic as th ey m ay
once have b ee n - are b eco m in g available th e w orld over; finally th e global
netw o rk in g of co m m unications tech n o lo g y m akes all kinds o f in fo rm a tio n
identically available from every p o in t in space.29
28 T his is not a straightforward matter o f ex p o rtin g W estern ideas, rather retroactive
m odifications also com e about: T he affirm ation o f property, for exam p le, w hich Indian
w om en ’s rights cam paigners said rep resen ted an in d isp en sab le p rereq u isite for th eir
em ancipation, has caused som e W estern critics o f private property to think again. - 1 owe
this observation to Martha C. Nussbaum.
29 Places like M amm oth - a Californian ski station, w here you fin d n u m erou s n am es
such as St. Moritz Road, C h am on ix P lace, C ortina C ircuit, o r M egeve W ay (in th e
surroundings you also have a M atterhorn Peak) are curious exam p les o f th e trend to
68
T r a n s c u l t u r a u iy : T h e C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
c. C o m p reh en siv e n ess o f th e cultural changes
C u ltu ra l m ix in g occurs n o t only - as is o ften too one-sidely stated - on
th e low level o f C oke, M cD onalds, MTV o r CNN, b u t in h ig h cu ltu re as well,
a n d this has b e e n th e case fo r a lo n g tim e - think, for exam ple, o f Puccini an d
C h in ese m usic; o f G au g u in a n d T ahiti; o f Picasso a n d A frican sculpture; o r o f
M essiaen a n d In d ia. M oreover, c u ltu re in the sense of form s o f life, o f daily
ro u tin e is m o re a n d m o re b ec o m in g cross-cultural too. G erm ans, for exam ple,
today have im p le m e n te d m o re elem en ts o f F ren c h an d Italian lifestyle than
ever b e fo re - even G erm an s today know how to enjoy life.
d. D issolution o f th e foreign-ow n distinction
Stricdy sp eaking th e re is n o lo n g er anything absolutely foreign. Everything
is w ithin re ach . A ccordingly, th e re is n o lo n g er anything exclusively ‘ow n’
eith e r. A u th en ticity has b e c o m e folklore, it is ownness sim ulated for o th ers to w h o m th e in d ig e n e h im self b e lo n g s.“
I w a n t to p ro v id e two exam ples. T hese days it is su p erm a rk et products,
te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s articles a n d T-shirts from fam ous universities above all
th a t b e lo n g to p o tla tc h - th e ritu al o f exchange and waste am ong today’s
successo rs o f nativ e N o rth A m ericans. R epresentatives o f In d ia n c u ltu re
them selves co n sid e r it highly q u estio n ab le th a t th eir ancestors w ould still
re co g n ize to d ay ’s custom s as a co n tin u atio n o f the old rituals. B ut this d o e sn ’t
w orry th em . T hey seize the foreign as th eir own. As can be seen, transculturality
ca n re a c h all th e way dow n to th e m ost e m p h atic rituals o f identity.
B u t w hile th e se F irst N a tio n P eo p le are still aw are o f th e orginally
h e te ro g e n o u s so u rce o f th e articles n am ed, this often n o lo n g e r seem s to be
th e case in J a p a n . T h e re th e fo reig n is co n sid ered the own as a m atter o f
cou rse. In Kyoto, a c c o m p a n ie d b y ja p a n e se friends, I e n te re d a re sta u ran t in
w hich every th in g a p p e a re d g en u in ely Jap a n ese a n d asked my com panions
hybridization. O ne has th e whole world (insofar as it counts for a specific purpose) in
o n e place.
30
T h e rh eto ric o f regional cultures is largely sim ulatory and aesthetic; in substance
m ost things are transculturally d eterm ined. W hat’s regionally specific has becom e décor,
superficies, aesthetic enactm ent. This is, o f course, one o f the reasons for the em inent
sp read o f th e aesthetic noticable today (cf. Die Aktualität des Ästhetischen, ed. Wolfgang
W elsch, M unich: Fink, 1993). - O ne m ight, ju st once, seek o ut a T irolean ski resort:
T iro lean m erely exists still as atm ospheric enactm ent, as o rnam entation. On the o th er
h an d , th e basic structures - from the ski lifts through to the toilets - are exactly similar to
those in F rench ski regions o r at intern atio n al airports. Significantly, th e cuisine too has
changed. W hat is p u t before one, looks like and calls itself Tirolean Gröstl, Kasnocken or
S ch u p fn u deln, b u t it is —co rresp o n d in g with international standards - drastically caloriered u ced . In short: T h e ap p e aran c e is still T irolean, b u t in substance everything has
ch an g ed . O riginality exists only as an aesthetic production.
69
W o l f g a n g W k l sc ii
w h eth er everything h e re really was c o m p le te ly ja p a n e se , in c lu d in g th e chairs
w hich we h ad ju s t sat down on. T h ey see m e d asto n ish ed by th e q u e stio n ,
alm ost an noyed, a n d hastily assured m e th a t ev erything th e re - in c lu d in g th e
chairs - was co m p letely jap a n ese. B ut I knew th e chairs: they w ere a m o d el
“C ab”, desig n ed by M ario Bellini a n d p ro d u c e d by C assina in M ilan. I d i d n ’t
th en ask th e n ex t q u estio n - w h e th e r th e crockery was c o m p le te ly ja p a n e s e
(we w ere eatin g from Suom i series plates p ro d u c e d by R o s e n th a l). - I t ’s n o t
th at E u ro p e an fu rn itu re should b e fo u n d h e re th a t’s asto n ish in g , b u t th a t
th e ja p a n e s e h eld th em to be p ro d u c ts o f th e ir ow n c u ltu re . T h a t th e fo reig n
an d own has beco m e indistiguishable fo r th em serves w itness to th e d e g re e o f
factual transculturality.
E xpressed as a p rin cip le this m eans: T h e selectivity b etw e en ow n-culture
an d fo reig n cu ltu re is g o n e.31 T oday in a c u ltu re ’s in te rn a l re la tio n s - a m o n g
its d iffe re n t ways o f life - th e re exists as m u c h fo reig n n ess as in its e x te rn a l
relatio n s with o th e r cultures.32
31 Incidentally, this is also reflected in a fam ous th e o re m within analytic philosophy.
A ccording to Q uine and Davidson, the problem o f translation between different societies
and languages is structurally no different an d in n o way g reater o r m o re dram atic th an
within one and the same society and language. Rorty com m ents: “P art o f th e force o f Q u in e ’s
and D avidson’s attack on the distinction betw een the con cep tu al a n d th e em pirical is
that the distinction between different cultures does n o t differ in kind from th e distinction
between different theories held by m em bers o f a single culture. T h e T asm anian aborigines
and the British colonists h ad trouble com m unicating, b u t this tro u b le was d ifferen t only
in ex ten t from the difficulties in com m unication ex p erien ced by G ladstone an d Disraeli.
[...] T h e sam e Q uinean argum ents which dispose o f th e positivists’ distinction betw een
analytic an d synthetic tru th dispose o f th e a n th ro p o lo g ists’ d istin ctio n betw een th e
intercultural and the intracultural” (Richard Rorty, “Solidarity o r Objectivity”, in: Objectivity,
Relativism, and Truth, Cambridge: C am bridge U niversity Press, 1991, pp. 21-34, h ere p.
26).
32 Sociologically viewed, this is a familiar fact today: “[...] people b elong to many different
cultures an d the cultural differences are as likely to be within states (i.e. betw een regions,
classes, ethnic groups, the urban and rural) as between states" (A nthony King, “A rchitecture,
Capital and the Globalization of C ulture”, in: Global Culture: Nationalism, globalization and
modernity, A Theory, C ulture & Society special issue, ed. Mike F eath ersto n e, L ondon:
Sage, 1990, pp. 397-411, here p. 409). “ [...] cultural diversity tends now to be as g reat
within nations as it is between them ” (U lf H annerz, Cultural Complexity. Studies in the Social
Organization of Meaning, New York: Colum bia U niversity Press, 1992, p. 231). “It is n atu ral
that in th e contem porary world many local settings are increasingly ch aracterized by
cultural diversity. [...] and one may in th e en d ask w h eth e r it is now even possible to
becom e a cosm opolitan w ithout going away at all” (U lf H an n erz, “C osm opolitans an d
Locals in W orld C ulture”, in: Global Culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity, pp.
237-251, h ere p. 249).
70
T RANSCUI-'lURAI.riY: T I IK CH AN G ING FORM O F CULTURES TODAY
2. Microlevel: transcultural formation o f individuals
a. Several cu ltu ra l origins
T ra n sc u ltu ra lity is g ain in g g ro u n d m o reo v er n o t only on th e m acrocu ltu ra l level, b u t also o n th e in d iv id u al’s m icrolevel. For m ost o f us, m ultiple
cu ltu ra l c o n n e x io n s are decisive in term s o f o u r cultural form ation. We are
cu ltu ra l hybrids. T o d a y ’s w riters, fo r exam ple, em phasize th a t they’re shaped
n o t by a single h o m e la n d , b u t by differing referen ce co u n tries, by Russian,
G e rm an , S o u th a n d N o rth A m erican o rja p a n e s e literature. T oday this applies
n o t only fo r advocates o f hig h -cu ltu re, b u t increasingly for everyone. Since
th e G e rm an s have b e e n travelling en masse to h o t countries, as studies show,
th e ir a ttitu d e to su m m e r days e a rlier co n sid ered unbearably h o t has ch an g ed
significantly; all o f a su d d e n p eo p le enjoy these days. O r if you speak to the
chefs o f a co m p letely n o rm a l restau ran t: they can explain to you how o u r
taste has c h a n g e d w ithin th e last twenty years, how m uch o f w hat was once
ex o tic is c o n s id e re d n o rm a l as a m atter o f course. O r th in k o f young peo p le
a n d how they are sh ap e d by p o p a n d m usic culture: role-m odels can no lo n g er
b e s o rte d n atio n ally a t all. In this way transculturality is today advancing in
th e m o st n a tu ra l m a n n e r a n d is d eterm in in g th e fo rm atio n o f individuals’
c u ltu ra l id en tity . T h e c u ltu ra l fo rm a tio n o f su b se q u e n t g en e ra tio n s will
p re su m a b ly b e even m o re strongly transculturally sh ap ed .33
b. S ociological diagnoses
Sociologists have b e e n tellin g us since the seventies th at m o d e rn lives are
to b e u n d e rs to o d “as a m ig ratio n th ro u g h d ifferen t social worlds a n d as the
successive re alizatio n o f a n u m b e r o f possible id en tities”,34 a n d th at we all
possess “m u ltip le a tta c h m e n ts a n d id en tities” - “cross-cutting identities”, as
Bell p u t it.35
Even in th e th irties P aul Valéry h a d already p o in te d o u t th a t ex tern al
so c ia l p lu ra liz a tio n also b rin g s a b o u t an in te rn a l p lu ra liz a tio n o f th e
in d iv id u al;31’ a n d th e C hicago sociologists praised th e n th e advantages o f a
33 Amy G utm ann states th at today “m ost people’s identities, n o tju st W estern intellectuals
o r elites, are sh ap ed by m ore than a single culture. N ot only societies, b u t people are
m u lticu ltu ra l” (Amy G utm ann, “T he Challenge o f M ulticulturalism in Political Ethics”,
in: Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22, no. 3 [1993], pp. 171-206, here p. 183).
34 P ete r L. Berger, Brigitte B erger, H ansfried Kellner, The Homeless Mind. Modernization
and Consciousness, New York: R andom H ouse, 1973, p. 77.
35 D aniel Bell, The Winding Passage. Essays and SociologicalJourneys 1960-1980, Cambridge,
Mass.: A bt Books, 1980, p. 243.
30
A ccording to him th e present-day m eans a state in which “a series of doctrines,
schools o f th o u g h t a n d ‘tru th s’, w hich vary greatly am ongst themselves, or are even
71
W o l fg a n g W elsci i
m ultiple o r frag m en ted self fo r u rb a n life, as R ich ard S e n n e tt has re cen tly
p o in ted o u t.37 “By virtue o f his d ifferen t interests arising o u t o f d iffe re n t aspects
o f social life, the individual acquires m e m b e rsh ip in w idely d iv erg e n t g ro u p s”,
said Louis W irth .38 “A frag m en ted self is m o re resp o n siv e”.su
c. H istorical precursors
Such in tern a l m ultiplicity w hich is rapidly in cre asin g in m o d e rn ity a n d
postm odernity, is o f course n o t totally new. M o n taig n e h a d alread y confessed:
“I have n o th in g to say ab o u t m yself absolutely, sim ply, a n d solidly, w ith o u t
confusion a n d w ith o u t m ixture, o r in o n e w o rd .”411“W e are all p atchw ork, a n d
so shapeless a n d diverse in com position th a t each b it, ea ch m o m e n t, plays its
own g am e.”41 Novalis declared th a t o n e p erso n is “several p e o p le a t o n c e ”
since “pluralism” is “o u r in n e rm o st essen ce”.42 N ietzsche said o f h im se lf th a t
h e was “glad to h a rb o u r [...] n o t ,o n e im m o rta l so u l4, b u t many mortal souls
w ithin”,43 a n d he coined the form ula o f the “subject as a m u ltitu d e ” in g en eral.44
O r re m e m b e r W alt W h itm a n ’s “I am larg e ... I c o n ta in m u ltitu d e s ”45 o r
com pletely contradictory, are acknow ledged in equal m easu re” a n d even - this is decisive
- “exist alongside one a n o th e r an d act w ithin th e sam e in d iv id u als” (P aul Valéry,
“T rio m p h e de M anet”, Œuvres, II, Paris: G allim ard, 1960, pp. 1326-1333, h e re p. 1327).
Today “in all cultivated m inds” th e re exist “the m ost varying o f ideas a n d o p p o sin g
principles of life an d cognition freely alongside one an o th e r [...].” “T h e m ajority o f us
will have several views about the same object, which easily altern ate with o n e a n o th e r in
ju d g m e n ts” (Paul Valéry, “La crise de l ’esprit”, Œuvres, I, Paris: G allim ard, 1957, p p . 9881014, h ere p. 992; Valéry, “L apolitique de l ’e sp rit”, pp. 1014-1040, h ere p. 1017). A lready
in 1890 Valéry had written to his friend P ierre Louis “je crois plus que jam ais q u e j e suis
plusieurs!” (Paul Valéry, L etter of 30 August 1890, in: Lettres à quelques-uns, Paris: Gallim ard,
1952, p. 17 f., h ere p. 18).
37 Cf. R ichard Sennett, The Conscience o f the Eye: The Design and, Social Life o f Cities (New
York: N orton, 1992), p. 127.
38 Louis W irth, “U rbanism as a Way o f Life” [1938], in: Classic Essays on the Culture of
Cities, ed. Richard S ennett (New York: P rentice Hall, 1969), p. 156.
3!l Sennett, The Conscience of the Eye, p. 127.
40 Michel de Montaigne, The Complete Essays, trans. D onald M. Fram e (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1992), p. 242 [II 1].
41 Ibid., p. 244.
42 Novalis, Schriften, eds Paul K luckhohn and R ichard Sam uel, vol. 3: Das philosophische
Werk II (Stuttgart: K ohlham m er, 1983), p. 571 [107] and p. 250 [63] resp.
43 Friedrich Nietzsche, Menschliches, Allzumenschliches. Ein Buch fü r freie Geister. Zweiter
Band, in: Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden, eds G iorgio Colli and
Mazzino M ontinari (M unich: D eutscher T aschenbuch Verlag, 1980), vol. 2, p. 386 [II
IV].
44 Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachgelassene Fragmente. Juli 1882 bis Herbst 1885, in: Sämtliche
Werke, vol. 11, p. 650 [August - S eptem ber 1885].
45 Walt W hitm an, Leaves of Grass [“Song o f M yself’], 1855 (New York: P en g u in Books,
1985), p. 84 [1314-1316],
72
T r a n s c u l t u r a l it y : T i if. C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l tures T o d a y
R im b a u d ’s “JE est u n a u tre ”.41' Today w hat once applied to o utstanding persons
only seem s to b e b e c o m in g th e stru ctu re o f alm ost everybody.47
d. C u ltu ral id en tity in c o n tra st to n atio n al identity
A cu ltu ral id en tity o f this type is, o f course, n o t to be eq u a te d with national
identity. T h e d istinction betw een cultural an d national identity is o f elem entary
im p o rta n c e . It b elo n g s a m o n g th e m ustiest assum ptions th a t an individual’s
cu ltu ra l fo rm a tio n m u st b e d e te rm in e d by his nationality o r n atio n al status.
T h e in s in u a tio n th a t s o m e o n e w ho possesses a Ja p a n e se , an In d ia n o r a
G e rm an p assp o rt m u st also culturally unequivocally be Jap a n ese, an In d ian
o r a G e rm an a n d th a t otherw ise h e ’s som e guy w ithout a fa th e rlan d , o r a
tra ito r to his fa th e rla n d , is as foolish as it is d an g ero u s.48 T h e d e ta c h m e n t o f
civic fro m p e rso n a l o r cu ltu ra l identity is to b e insisted u p o n - all the m ore so
in states, such as o urs, in w hich freed o m in cultural form ation belongs am ong
o n e ’s basic rig h ts.4!l
W h erev er an individual is cast by differing cultural references, the linking
o f its tra n sc u ltu ra l c o m p o n e n ts with o n e a n o th e r becom es a specific task in
iden tity -fo rm in g . W ork o n o n e ’s identity is increasingly b eco m in g w ork on
th e in te g ra tio n o f c o m p o n e n ts o f differing cultural origin.™ A nd only the
ability to tran scu ltu rally cross over will g u aran tee us identity a n d co m p eten ce
in th e lo n g ru n .51
40 A rth u r R im baud, L etter to Paul D em eny [May 15, 1871], in: Œuvres completes (Paris:
G allim ard, 1972), pp. 249-254, h ere p. 250).
47 Vgl. zum T h em a des plu ralen Subjekts Verf., “Subjektsein h eu te - Ü berlegungen
zur T ran sform ation des Subjekts”, Deutsche Zeitschrift fü r Philosophie, 39. Jg. (1991), H eft 4,
347-365; fern er: Vernunft. Die zeitgenössische Vemunftkritik und das Konzept der transversalen
Vernunft (F ran k fu rt/M ain : S uhrkam p 1995), Zweiter Teil, Kap. XIV: “Transversalität u n d
Subjektivität”, 829-852.
4“ This insinuation stems from th e classical concept of culture in so far as this is folkbased an d com m ands hom ogeneity.
40 O f course, civic an d cultural identity can overlap. In many cases they will. T h e point
is th a t they are n o t to be equated.
5(1 Z ehra Çirak, a T urkish b o rn w riter who has lived in Germany since the age of two,
says on this: “I p refer n e ith e r my T urkish n o r my G erm an culture. I live and long for a
m ixed cu ltu re” (Z ehra Çirak, Vogel a u f dem Rücken eines Elefanten, Cologne: K iepenheuer
& W itsch, 1991, p. 94).
51 Cf. my Vernunft: Die zeitgenössische Vemunftkritik und das Konzept der transversalen Vernunft,
especially pp. 829-852.
73
W o lfg a n g W elsch
3. Intermediate summary
T o sum this up: C ultural d e te rm in a n ts today - from society’s m acrolevel
th ro u g h to in d ividuals’ m icrolevel - have b e c o m e tra n sc u ltu ra l. T h e o ld
c o n c ep t o f cu ltu re has b ecom e co m pletely in a p p ro p ria te . It m isrep re sen ts
cultures’ actual form , the type o f their relations a n d th e stru ctu re o f individuals’
id en tities a n d lifestyles/’2 Every c o n c e p t o f c u ltu re in te n d e d to p e rta in to
today’s reality m ust face u p to the tra n sc u ltu ra l c o n stitu tio n .53'54 T h e g estu re
m ad e by som e cu ltu ral theorists, w ho p re fe r to clin g to th e ir c u sto m ary
52 W herever this concept continues to be rep resen ted , it acts as a norm ative corset, as
a coercive hom ogenization precept.
53 U lf H an n e rz’ concept (o r “root m e ta p h o r”) o f “creole cu ltu res” a n d “creo lizatio n ”
is q u ite close to my perspective o f tran sc u ltu rality . “C reo le c u ltu re s co m e o u t o f
m ultidim ensional cultural encounters and can p u t things to g eth er in new ways” (H annerz,
Cultural Complexity, p. 265). “Som ething like creole cultu res”, H an n e rz suggests, “may
have a larger p art in our future than cultures designed, each by itself, to be pieces o f a
m osaic” (ibid., p. 267). In 1991 Michel Serres held an impressive p le a in th e sp irit of
transculturality (Michel Serres, Le Tiers-Instruit, Paris: E ditions François B ourin, 1991).
His thesis is that w hat m atters for present-day culture an d ed u catio n is to tran scen d the
traditional alternatives of own and foreign an d to think in term s o f in tersectio n , m ixing
and penetration. W hoever wants to move in the present-day world m ust be able to deal
with a m edley of cultural patterns.
M A fu rth e r conceptual clarification may be helpful. T h e diagnosis o f transculturality
refers to a transition, o r to a phase in a process o f transition. I t’s a tem p o rary diagnosis. It
takes the old conception of single cultures as its p o in t o f d e p a rtu re , an d it argues th a t this
conception - although still seem ing self-evident to m any people - is no longer descriptively
adequate for m ost cultures today. Instead, the diagnosis o f transculturality views a p rese n t
and future state of cultures which is no longer m onocultural b u t cross-cultural. T h e concept
seeks to conceptually grasp this transition. O ne point, however, m ig h t seem confusing in
this talk of transculturality. It may appear contradictory th a t th e co n cep t o f transculturality
which points to a disappearance of the traditional single cultures no n eth eless in h eren tly
continues to refer to ‘cu ltures’, and to a certain ex ten t even seems to p resu p p o se the
ongoing existence o f such cultures - for if th e re were n o lo n g e r such cultures, w here
should the transcultural mixers take th e ir co m ponents from ? T h e p o in t can easily be
clarified. T he process o f transition obviously im plies too m om ents: the o n g o in g existence
o f single cultures (or o f an old u n d erstan d in g o f cu ltu re ’s form ) and th e shift to a new,
transcultural form o f cultures. W ith respect to this double ch a racter o f th e tran sitio n , it is
conceptually sound and even necessary to refer to single cultures o f the o ld type as well as
to p o in t the way to transculturality. But w hat will be the case after th e tran sitio n has been
made? W o n ’t it, at least then, be contradictory to co n tin u e speaking o f ‘cu ltu res’ on the
one h an d an d o f ‘transculturality’ on the o ther? N ot at all. Because th e activity o f weaving
new webs will, o f course, continue to take existing cultures as its starting-point o r reservoir
for the developm ent o f fu rth e r webs - b u t now these referen ce cultures them selves will
already have a transcultural cut. T he duo o f referen ce cultures o n th e on e h a n d a n d new
cultural webs on the other rem ains, the difference how ever is th a t the referen ce cultures
will now already be ‘cultural’ in the sense o f ‘tran scu ltu ral’.
74
T r a n s c u l t u r a i .tiy : T i i e C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
c o n c e p ts a n d , w h erev er reality d o e s n ’t yield to these, re tre a t to a “well so
m u c h th e w orse fo r reality”, is ridiculous.
I V Supplem ents a n d outlooks
H av in g so far d ev e lo p e d th e g en eral features o f transculturality, I w ould
now like to a p p e n d som e su p p le m e n ta l viewpoints an d prospects.
1. Transculturality - already in history
First: T ra n scu ltu rality is in n o way com pletely new historically. It has, to
b e su re, b e e n th e case to a la rg e r e x te n t th an th e ad h e re n ts o f th e trad itio n al
c o n c e p t o f c u ltu re w a n t to adm it. T hey blindly deny th e factual historic
tran sc u ltu rality o f lo n g p erio d s in o rd e r to establish the n in e te e n th ce n tu ry ’s
im ag in ary n o tio n o f h o m o g e n e o u s national cultures. - T ake w hatever culture
you w a n t as ex am p le. T ak e y o u r own or, for instance, Jap a n e se culture: It
obviously c a n n o t b e re co n stru cted w ithout taking C hinese a n d K orean, Indian,
H e llen istic o r m o d e rn E u ro p e a n cu ltu re into account.
C arl Z u ckm ayer o n c e w onderfully described historical transculturality in
The D evil’s General. “ [...] ju s t im ag in e your line o f ancestry, from th e b irth o f
C h rist o n . T h e re was a R om an co m m an d er, a d ark type, brow n like a rip e
olive, h e h a d ta u g h t a b lo n d girl Latin. A nd th e n a Jew ish spice d ea le r cam e
in to th e fam ily, h e was a serious p erso n , who becam e a C hristian b efo re his
m a rria g e a n d fo u n d e d th e h o u s e ’s C atholic tradition. - A nd th e n cam e a
G re e k d o c to r, o r a C eltic legionary, a G risonian lan d sk n ec h t, a Swedish
h o rs e m a n , a N a p o le o n ic soldier, a d ese rted Cossack, a Black F orest m iner, a
w a n d erin g m ille r’s boy fro m th e Alsace, a fat m arin e r from H olland, a Magyar,
a p a n d o u r, a V ien n ese officer, a F rench actor, a B ohem ian m usician - all
lived o n th e R h in e, braw led, boozed, a n d sang a n d b eg o t ch ild re n th ere a n d - G o e th e , h e was from th e sam e pot, a n d B eethoven, a n d G utenberg,
a n d M athias G rü n ew ald, a n d —o h , w hatever - j u s t look in th e encyclopaedia.
T h ey w ere th e b est, m y dear! T h e w orld’s best! A nd why? B ecause th a t’s w here
th e p eo p les in term ix ed . In te rm ix e d - like th e waters fro m sources, stream s
a n d rivers, so, th a t they ru n to g e th e r to a great, living to rre n t”.55 - This is a
realistic d e sc rip tio n o f a ‘fo lk ’s’ historical genesis a n d co n stitu tio n . It breaks
55
Carl Zuckm ayer, The Devil’s General, in: Masters of Modem Drama (New York: R andom
H ouse, 1963), pp. 911-958, h ere p. 930 [translation modified].
75
W o l fg a n g W elsch
th ro u g h th e fiction o f h o m o g en eity a n d th e sep a ra tist id e a o f c u ltu re as
d ec ree d by th e trad itio nal concept.
F o r everyone who knows th e ir E u ro p e a n h isto ry — a n d a rt h isto ry in
p articu lar - this historical tran scu ltu rality is evident. Styles d e v e lo p e d across
th e co u n trie s and nations, a n d m any artists c re a te d th e ir b e st w orks fa r fro m
hom e. A lb rech t D ü rer, who is co n sid e re d an ex em p lary G e rm a n artist, first
fo u n d h im self in Italy, a n d h e h ad to seek o u t V enice a se c o n d tim e in o rd e r
to b eco m e h im self com pletely. T h e cu ltu ra l tre n d s w ere largely E u ro p e a n
a n d s h a p e d a n e tw o rk lin k in g th e s ta te s .58 In g e n e r a l, E d w a rd S a id ’s
observation holds: “All cultures are hybrid; n o n e o f th e m is p u re ; n o n e o f
th em is id en tical to a ‘p u re ’ folk; n o n e o f th em consists o f a h o m o g e n o u s
fabric.”57
56 Recently the exhibition “II R inascim ento a V enezia e la p ittu ra del N o rd ai tem pi di
Bellini, D ürer, Tiziano” (Venice, Palazzo Grassi, 1999) caused a stir by g etting by com pletely
w ithout “national identity determ inations and d ues” (M atin W arnke) - it was g u id ed by
the way things were, by the many influences an d m ixtures.
57 Edward W. Said: “Kultur und Identität - Europas S elbstfindung aus d e r Einverleibung
d er W elt”, Lettre International 34 (1996), pp. 21-25, h ere p. 24. In the sam e sp irit W olf
L epenies has said: “T here are now only hybrid cultures” (W olf L epenies, “Das E n d e d e r
Ü berheblichkeit”, in: Die ZEIT, no. 48, 24 Nov. 1995, p. 62). Similarly, from a philosophical
p o in t o f view, J. N. M ohanty stated, “th a t talk o f a culture w hich evokes the id ea o f a
h om ogeneous form is com pletely m isleading. Ind ian culture, or H in d u cu ltu re consists
of com pletely different cultures. [...] A com pletely h o m ogen eo u s su b cu ltu re is n o t to be
fo u n d ” (Jitendra N. M ohanty, “D en an d e ren versteh en ”, in: Philosophische Grundlagen der
Interkulturalität, pp. 115-122, here p. 118). M ohanty also notes generally: “T h e idea o f
cultural purity is a myth” (ibid., p. 117). Jacques D errida notes: "It is peculiar to a culture,
that it is never identical with itself. T here is no culture an d no cu ltural identity w ith o u t this
difference toiuards itself (Jacques D errida, “Das an d e re Kap”, in: D as andere Kap. Die. vertagte
Demokratie - Zwei Essays zu Europa, F rankfurt/M ain: S uhrkam p 1992, pp. 9-80, h ere p. 12
f.) Rémi Brague has pointed out how E u ro p ean identity is ch aracterized by th e sense of
its distance from a double origin: “W hat’s specific to E u ro p ean identity lies in its ‘cultural
secondariness’: in the knowledge of its n o t bein g original, b u t having before it so m eth in g
else, som ething prior - culturally G reek antiquity, religiously Ju d a ism ” (Rém i Brague,
E u ropa-E in e exzentrische Identität, F rankfurt-M ain/N ew York: C am pus 1993). - As soon as
one observes the cultural fictions of purity m ore closely an d realistically, they rapidly
break u p into a series of transcultural entanglem ents. T raditionally, an d at least in th e
occident, m ixtures of peoples came ab o u t particularly th ro u g h conquest. In this, aspects
o f a co n q u ered culture were integrated in th e new, heg em o n ic cu lture. “Santa M aria
sopra M inerva” is the form ula for such processes. T he difference to today lies in th a t the
present-day blending has little to do with territorial, political expansions o r conquests: It
is far m ore a m atter of transversal cultural in terch an g e processes.
76
T ra n s c u ltu ra itiy : T
he C h a n g in g F o rm o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
2. Cultural conceptions as active factors in respect of their object
C o n c e p tio n s o f c u ltu re are n o tju s t descriptive concepts, b u t operative
co n c e p ts.“ O u r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f cu ltu re is an im p o rta n t active factor in o u r
cu ltu ra l life.
If o n e tells us (as th e o ld c o n c e p t o f cu ltu re did) th a t cu ltu re is to b e a
h o m o g e n e ity event, th e n we p ractice the re q u ire d coercions a n d exclusions.
W e seek to satisfy th e task we are set - an d will be successful in so doing.
W h e rea s, if o n e tells us o r su b se q u e n t g en eratio n s th a t c u ltu re o u g h t to
in c o rp o ra te th e fo reig n a n d d o ju stic e to transcultural co m p o n en ts, th e n we
will set a b o u t this task, a n d th e n co rresp o n d in g feats of in teg ratio n will b elo n g
to th e re al s tru c tu re o f o u r cu ltu re. T h e ‘reality’ o f cu ltu re is, in this sense,
always a c o n se q u e n c e too o f o u r co n ceptions o f culture.
O n e m u st th e re fo re b e aw are o f the responsibility w hich o n e takes on in
p ro p a g an d izin g con cepts o f this type. We should b e suggesting concepts which
a re descriptively a d e q u a te a n d norm atively accountable, a n d w hich - above
all - p rag m atically lead fu rth e r.M P ropagandizing the o ld c o n c e p t o f culture
a n d its su b se q u e n t form s has today b eco m e irresponsible; b e tte r chances are
fo u n d o n th e side o f th e c o n c e p t o f transculturality.
3. Annexability and transmutability
T h e c o n c e p t o f tran scu ltu rality aim s fo r a m ulti-m eshed a n d inclusive,
n o t sep a ratist a n d exclusive u n d e rsta n d in g o f culture. It in ten d s a cu ltu re
a n d society w hose p ra g m a tic feats exist n o t in delim itation, b u t in the ability
to lin k a n d u n d e rg o tran sitio n . In m eetin g with o th er form s o f life th e re are
58
G enerally, concepts are schem ata, with which we make o u r world understandable
for ourselves an d organize o u r actions. They preset grids and ways o f viewing things which
en tail behavioral p attern s an d disturb facts. In this light, Deleuze d eterm in ed the task of
philosophy as b ein g the creation o f concepts: “La philosophie [...] est la discipline qui
consisted créer des concepts” (Gilles Deleuze andF élix Guattari, Q u ’est-ce que la philosophie?,
Paris: E ditions de M inuit, 1991, p. 10).
50 H en ce critical reflections on cultural concepts, such as I und ertak e here, are - from
tim e to tim e at least - necessary. No o n e would claim that an alteration of the co n cep t eo
ipso already alters reality. T h a t w ould be overly simplistic idealism. But, conversely, th e
way in w hich the conscious an d subconscious effectuality of cultural term s codeterm ines
cu ltural reality should n o t be overlooked. T he subcutaneous and officious effectuality of
th e old con cep t o f culture - one thinks automatically, or even states explicitly th at culture
is to b e h om ogeneous, national etc. - contributes to separatisms an d particularism s of
th e obsolete sort. W ork on conceptual en lightenm ent is called fo r to cou n ter this.
77
W o lfg a n g W elsci i
always n o t only divergences b u t o p p o rtu n itie s to lin k u p , a n d th ese can b e
dev elo p ed an d e x te n d e d so th at a c o m m o n fo rm o f life is fa sh io n e d w hich
includes even reserves w hich h a d n ’t e a rlie r se e m e d ca p ab le o f b e in g lin k e d
in. E xtensions o f this type re p re se n t a p ressin g task today.
It is a m atter o f read ju stin g o u r in n e r com pass: away fro m th e c o n c e n ­
tratio n o n th e polarity o f the own a n d th e fo reig n to an atten tiv en ess fo r w h at
m ig h t be co m m o n a n d connective w herever we e n c o u n te r th in g s fo reig n .
T ran sculturality som etim es d em an d s things th a t m ay seem u n re a so n a b le
for o u r esteem ed habits - as does today’s reality everywhere. B ut transculturality
also c o n ta in s th e p o te n tia l to tra n s c e n d o u r re c e iv e d a n d s u p p o s e d ly
d e te rm in in g m o n o cu ltu ral stan d p o in ts, a n d we sh o u ld m ake in c re a sin g use
o f th ese p o te n tia ls . D ian e R avitch - a n A m e ric a n c ritic o f s e p a ra tis tic
m u lticu ltu ralism - rep o rts an in te re stin g exam ple: In a n interview a black
ru n n e r said “th at h e r m odel is M ikhail B aryshnikov. S he ad m ire s h im b ecau se
h e is a m ag n ificen t a th le te ”. D iane Ravitch co m m en ts: “H e is n o t black; h e is
n o t fem ale; h e is n o t A m erican-born; h e is n o t even a ru n n e r. B u t h e inspires
h e r becau se of th e way h e train e d a n d u sed his body. W h e n I re a d this, I
th o u g h t how narrow -m inded it is to believe th a t p e o p le c a n b e in sp ire d only
by those w ho are exactly like them in race a n d e th n ic ity ”.00 - O n c e again: W e
can a n d sh o u ld tran scen d the narrow ness o f trad itio n al, m o n o c u ltu ra l ideas
a n d constraints, we can develop an increasingly tra n sc u ltu ra l u n d e rs ta n d in g
o f ourselves. I am c o n fid e n t th a t fu tu re g e n e ra tio n s will m o re a n d m o re
develop su ch transcultural form s o f c o m m u n ic a tio n a n d c o m p re h e n s io n .1’1
00 D iane Ravitch, “M ulticulturalism: E P luribus P lures”, p. 354.
1,1 Incidentally, it is not only recent developm ents in the co n stitu tio n o f cultures, b u t in
the same way in science and with day-to-day problem s which m ake an analogous transition
to th o u g ht forms of m ixing necessary fo r us. T hey call fo r a shift away from th e old
preference for clean separation, division o f the w orld a n d u n ilin ea r analysis an d fo r a
transition to web-like, entangled, netw orked th o u g h t form s (I have set this o u t in m ore
detail in my Vernunft). T hus in reality too we are finding ourselves co n fro n ted m o re an d
m ore with issues which result from netw orking effects. Even w hen p roblem s arise locally
their effects transcend borders, becom e global. O u r old separatist th o u g h t form s however
are unsuited to react to this. For them such transcending of bord ers is m erely an “u ndesired
side effect” - which you accept with a shru g o f th e shoulders an d w hich you are helplessly
confronted with. But of course it appears only to be a “side effect” because o n e has th o u g h t
separatistically in the outset. T he causal chains o f reality how ever do n o t stop at this
sm all-m inded desire for division. H ence we m ust shift away from separative th in k in g an d
make the transition to th o u g h t forms o f en tan g le m e n t in econom ic, ecological, an d all
questions o f planning.
78
T r a n s c u l t u r a l it y : T i i e C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
4. Internal and external transculturality
F u r t h e r m o r e , th e in d iv id u a ls ’ disco v ery a n d a c c e p ta n c e o f th e ir
tra n sc u ltu ra l co n stitu tio n is a c o n d itio n for com ing to term s with societal
tran scu ltu rality . H a tre d d ire c te d towards foreigners is (as has b een show n
particularly from d ie psychoanalytic side) basically projected h atre d o f oneself.
O n e takes e x c e p tio n vicariously to so m eth in g in a stranger, w hich o n e carries
w ith in o neself, b u t d o es n o t like to adm it, p re ferrin g ra th e r to repress it
in te rn a lly a n d to b attle with it externally.02
J u lia Kristeva writes: “In a strange way, the stranger exists w ithin ourselves:
h e is th e h id d e n face o f o u r id en tity [...] If we recognize h im w ithin ourselves,
we p re v e n t ourselves fro m a b h o rin g him as su ch .”03 In d e e d she also states a
p re c o n d itio n for this re co g n itio n o f the stranger within oneself: “T hose w ho’ve
n ev e r lo st any o f th e ir roots, seem incapable o f a p p re h e n d in g any w ord w hich
c o u ld relativize th e ir position. [...] T h e ear opens itself to objections only
w h en th e b o d y loses th e g ro u n d b e n e a th its feet. To h e a r a dissonnance, o n e
m u st have e x p e rie n c e d a so rt o f im balance, a to tterin g u p o n an abyss.”04
P erh a p s th a t so u n d s m o re d ram atic th a n it is. For w ho today could be so
c o n c e ite d as to co n sid e r th e ir roots to be the only ones possible? N o t even to
value h is own ro o ts d o es h e have to do this. It is quite the reverse: insight into
th e sp ecificity o f th ese ro o ts m akes it possible to ju stify th e ir p a rtic u la r
estim atio n . B ut o n e c a n n o t th e n sim ultaneously p re se n t th em as b ein g the
b e st ro o ts o f all h u m a n k in d alto g e th e r (with m ost o th ers sim ply n o t having
h a d th e lu ck to receive these ro o ts in the cradle). O n e ’s own roots are roots
fo r oneself- n o t fo r everyone. O th e rs can a n d m ay well value th e ir own roots in
th e sam e way. T h e p re fe re n c e o f o n e ’s own origin at the sam e tim e logically
d em a n d s re co g n itio n , alth o u g h n o t necessarily th e ad o p tio n o f o th e r possible
1,2
F reu d h ad already p o in ted to an analogy between the inner topology of repression
an d th e o u te r topology o f the relation to strangers: “[...] the repressed is foreign territory
to th e ego - in tern al foreign territory - ju st as reality (if you will forgive the unusual
expression) is external foreign territory” (Sigm und Freud, “New Introductory Lectures
on Psycho-Analysis”, in: F reud, The Standard Edition, ed.Jam es Strachey, vol. XXII, London:
H o g arth , 1973, pp. 5-184, h ere p. 57 (31st L ecture). Musil has clearly recognized the
m echanism o f p rojection o f disinclinations: “Now, ethnic prejudice is usually n o th in g
m o re th a n self-hatred, d red g e d u p from the murky depths of o n e ’s own conflicts an d
p ro jected on to som e convenient victim, a traditional practice from tim e im m em orial”
(R obert Musil, The M an without Qualities, trans. Sophie Wilkins, New York: Knopf, 1995,
vol. I, p. 461). “[...] the good C hristian projects his own faults o n to the g oodjew , whom
h e accuses o f se d u c in g h im in to co m m ittin g ad vertisem en ts, h ig h in te re st rates,
new spapers, and all th a t so rt o f th in g ” (ibid., p. 559).
(i3 Ju lia Kristeva, Etrangers à nous-mêmes (Paris: Fayard, 1988), p. 9.
1,4 Ibid., p. 29 f.
79
W o l f g a n g W e i .s c i i
origins. O n e should re m in d o n ese lf o f this precisely in o n e ’s w eak m o m en ts,
those in which o n e m ight b e in d a n g e r o f d riftin g in to th e tra p o f m ak in g
claim s to exclusivity.
A gainst such tem ptations I w ould like to re m in d you o f an in h e rita n c e o f
o u r traditio n : in G reek i^émç m e a n t b o th th e stra n g e r a n d guest. In o th e r
words, stran g ers w ere w elcom e as a m a tte r o f course. - If o n e is to a p p e a l to
E u ro p e a n trad itio n at all, th e n please to this o n e too.
It is precisely w hen we n o lo n g e r deny, b u t ra th e r perceive, o u r in n e r
tr a n s c u ltu r a lity , t h a t we will b e c o m e c a p a b le o f d e a lin g w ith o u t e r
transculturality.
5. Transculturality = uniformization ?
L et m e tu rn to a p e n u ltim a te p o in t. I t’s a crucial o n e. I w a n t to re s p o n d
to a p o te n tia l m isu n d e rsta n d in g . O n e m ig h t th in k th a t th e c o n c e p t o f
transculturality simply m eans an d reco m m en d s th e acceptance o f an increasing
h o m o g en izatio n o f cultures a n d th e co m in g o f a u n ifo rm w orld-civilization,
w hereas it does n o t care ab o u t cu ltu ra l diversity a n d its d isa p p e a ra n c e . B ut
this is n o t die case at all. T ransculturality does n o t m ean sim ple u niform ization.
It is even intrinsically linked with th e p ro d u c tio n o f new diversity. F o r two
aspects n e e d to be distinguished.
First o f all, it is in d e e d the case th a t cu ltu ra l diversity in th e old sense is
dim inishing. Today’s an d tom orrow ’s cultures will n o lo n g er b e h o m o g en eo u s,
m o n o l it h i c , c le a rly d e lim ite d ( n e i t h e r fa c tu a lly , n o r in t h e i r o w n
u n d e rsta n d in g o f them selves). It is ju s t this w hich com prises th e c o n te n t o f
the transculturality diagnosis.
B ut even with re g ard to this u n ifo rm iza tio n o n e sh o u ld n o t only see gray.
W hereas uniform ization brings with it cu ltu ral losses o n th e o n e h a n d , g re a te r
com m unicability betw een p eo p le o f d iffe re n t origins - as is se e n p artic u la rly
in th e y o u n g er g en e ratio n - ensues in its wake. U n d e rs ta n d in g each o th e r is
b eco m in g m o re a m atter o f course a n d it is b e c o m in g easier to g e t o n w ith
each o th e r in everyday life th an was th e case in any e a rlie r g e n e ra tio n . T h ese
could be signs o f th e form ation o f a w orld-internal society. T h e u n ifo rm izatio n
processes m ig h t p erh ap s lead us close to th e old d re a m o f a Fam ily o f M an
a n d o f a peaceful global society. For this o n e m ig h t very well ac c e p t som e
losses at o th e r levels.
As tran sculturality pushes forw ard, diversity does n o t sim ply vanish, b u t
its m o d e is altered. Diversity, as traditionally p ro v id ed in th e fo rm o f single
cultures, does in d e e d d isap p ear increasingly. In stea d , how ever, a new type o f
80
T r a n s c u l / r u R M .n y : T iik C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
diversity takes shape: th e diversity o f d iffe ren t cultures a n d form s o f life, each
arisin g fro m tra n sc u ltu ra l p e rm e a tio n s a n d exhibiting a tran scu ltu ral cut.
C o n sid e r j u s t how these tran sc u ltu ral form ations com e about. D ifferent
g ro u p s o r individuals w hich give shape to new tran scu ltu ral pattern s draw
u p o n d iffe re n t so u rces fo r this p urpose. H en ce th e tran scu ltu ral netw orks
they are s h a p in g will vary already in th eir inventory; an d they will d o so even
m o re in th e ir stru c tu re , b ecau se even the sam e elem ents, w hen p u t to g eth er
d ifferen tly , re su lt in d iffe re n t structures. T h e tran scu ltu ral webs are woven
w ith d iffe re n t th rea d s, a n d in d iffe re n t m an n er. T h erefo re, o n the level o f
tran scu ltu rality , a h ig h d e g re e o f cultural m anifoldness arises o n ce again c e rta in ly n o less th a n th a t w h ich was fo u n d b etw een tra d itio n a l single
cultures.® I t ’s ju s t th a t now th e differences n o lon ger exist betw een clearly
d elin ea te d cultures, b u t resu lt betw een transcultural networks o f identity which
a re n o lo n g e r b o u n d to g e o g ra p h ic a l o r n a tio n a l stip u latio n s. T h e new
situ atio n can b e d e sc rib e d as follows: the sam e o r sim ilar identity netw orks
can tu rn u p at d iffe re n t places in this world; at the sam e tim e q u ite d iffe ren t
form s o f id e n tity can exist in th e sam e place. N e ith er w ould b e possible
a c c o rd in g to th e old, m o n o c u ltu ra l m odel. This shows o n ce again the e x te n t
o f th e ch an g es th a t are lin k ed with transculturality.
All o f this ap p lies n o t only o n the level o f groups, b u t already o n th a t o f
individuals. T h e global sp re a d o f the sam e c o n te n t and signs in n o way m eans
th e in c e p tio n o f a u n ifo rm h u m an . Instead selective screening is often carried
o u t q u ite d ifferen tly , as is ad d itio n ally the a ttrib u tio n o f m ean in g . Even
so m eo n e w ho m akes th e sam e selections as a n o th e r person can give the chosen
e lem e n ts a q u ite d iffe re n t m e a n in g in his cultural cosm os from those o f the
o th e r.1’1’ H e n c e in stead o f a p u rp o rte d uniform ity there exists from now o n a
diverse n etw o rk o f c o m m o n featu res a n d differences betw een individuals.1’7
li5 Sim ilar views to m ine are forw arded by U lf H annerz who says “that the flow of
cu ltu re betw een countries an d continents may result in anoth er diversity of culture, based
m o re on in te rco n n ec tio n s th an on autonom y” (H annerz, Cultural Complexity, p. 266) and
by Mike F eatherstone, who argues “against those who would wish to p resen t the tendency
o n th e g lobal level to be o n e o f cu ltu ral in teg ratio n an d h o m o g e n iz a tio n ” (Mike
F eath erstone, Consumer culture & postmodernism, London: Sage, 1991, p. 146).
I|B “Even if the possibility o f global com m unication has come ab o u t am ong young
peo p le an d ch anged societies th ro u g h o u t the world, this doesn’t m ean that the uniform
young p erso n has now m ade its entry on the world stage. A global sem iotic com m unity
has arisen, b u t the signs have m anifold m eaning” (Reinhold Görling, Heterotopia. Lektüren
einer interkulturellen Literaturwissenschaft, M unich: Fink, 1997, p. 37).
07
Max S cheler had already p o in te d out the sim ultaneity of the adjustm ent between
cultures and th e increase in individual differentiation. He did this in a 1927 lecture entitled
“M an in the E ra o f A djustm ent” (in: Max Scheler, Philosophical Perspectives, Boston: Beacon,
81
W o l f g a n g W e l s c ii
T his new type o f cultural diversity exhibits a g re a t advantage over th e old
one. T ra n scu ltu ral netw orks always have som e elem e n ts in c o m m o n w hile
differing in others, m eaning th at th ere exist betw een th em n o t only differences,
b u t at th e sam e tim e overlaps. Since they in clu d e p arts w hich also o c c u r in
o th e r netw orks, they are a lto g e th e r m o re cap ab le o f affd iatio n a m o n g st o n e
a n o th e r th a n the o ld cultural identities ever w ere. So in term s o f its stru c tu re
th e new type o f d ifference favors coex isten ce ra th e r th a n c o n d ict. F orm s
d iffe rin g tra n s c u ltu ra lly a re fre e fro m th e o ld p ro b le m s o f separatistic
difference.
6. Comparing the concept of transculturality to the gloabalization and
particularization diagnoses
T o co n clu d e, I’d like to co m p are th e c o n c e p t o f tran sc u ltu rality w ith two
o t h e r c o n c e p ts w h ich a re m u c h ta lk e d a b o u t to d ay : th e c o n c e p t o f
globalization a n d th a t o f particu larizatio n . My thesis is th a t these co n c ep ts
are too one-sided, a n d th a t p artic u la rizatio n is a w rong, yet u n d e rs ta n d a b le
reaction to the likewise insufficient globalization diagnosis. T h e transculturality
c o n c e p t however, it seems to m e, is able to fulfill th e leg itim ate d e m a n d s o f
b o th co m p etin g concepts, because it ex p lain s u n ifo rm ita ria n processes o n
th e o n e side and th e em erg en ce o f new diversity o n th e o th e r side w ith in a
single fram ew ork.
T h e co n cep t o f globalization assum es th a t cultures are b ec o m in g th e sam e
th e w o rld over.1’8 G lo balization is obviously a c o n c e p t o f u n ifo rm iz a tio n
(p referably following th e W estern m o d el) - a n d o f u n ifo rm iz a d o n alo n e. B ut
this view can, at best, re p re s e n t h a lf th e p ic tu re , a n d th e c h a m p io n s o f
g lo b alizatio n m u st be having a h a r d tim e ig n o rin g th e c o m p le m e n ta ry
re su rg en ce o f particularism s w orldw ide.69 T h e ir c o n c e p t, how ever, is by its
1958, pp. 94-126). Scheler denoted the “adju stm en t” as the “inclusive tren d o f this e ra ”
(p. 102).
1,8 Cf. Global Culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity.
Incidentally, it is by no means evident th a t globalization processes are correctly
defined when they are only described as u n ilin ea r expansion o f W estern cu ltu re. O ne
would, at the same time, have to be attentive to considerable alterations which the elem ents
o f the initial culture experience in their acquisition. S tephen G reen b latt has p o in te d o u t
such am biguities in the “assimilation o f the o th e r”. H e describes this, for instance, in the
way the inhabitants of Bali deal with video technology in a ritual context: “if the television
and th e VCR [...] suggested the astonishing pervasiveness o f capitalist m arkets an d
technology, [...] the Balinese adaptation o f the latest W estern an d Ja p an ese m odes of
rep resen tation seem ed so culturally idiosyncratic an d resilient th a t it was u n clear who
82
T r a n s c u l t u r a l it y : T h e C h a n g in g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
very stru c tu re in c a p a b le o f d eveloping an adeq u ate u n d e rsta n d in g o f these
co u n te r-te n d e n c ie s. F ro m th e view point o f globalization, particularism s are
ju s t p h e n o m e n a w hich are re tro g ra d e a n d whose destiny it is to vanish.
B u t p articu larism s c a n n o t in fact b e ignored. T he “re tu rn to tribes” is
sh a p in g th e state o f th e w orld ju s t as m u ch as the tre n d towards a world
society.™ In my u n d e r s ta n d in g - a n d th a t o f m any o th e rs - this rise in
p a rtic u la rism s is a re a c tio n to g lobalization processes.71 T ribalism fights
g lo b a lis m .72 T h is c e rta in ly c re a te s a n explosive s itu a tio n , b e c a u se th e
p articu larism s o ften refin e them selves th ro u g h the appeal to cultural identity
to nationalism s o r fundam entalism s producing hatred, ethnic cleansing actions
a n d w ar.711E n lig h te n m e n t p e o p le d o n ’t like these particularism s, a n d this too
was assim ilating w hom ” (S tephen G reenblatt, Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New
World, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1991, p. 4). H ence n o t even with respect to
eco n o m y - its p ara d ig m sp h e re - does the globalization diagnosis seem to be fully
appropriate. - U lf H annerz discusses similar phenom ena u nder the heading “creolization”:
the u n ifo rm tren d s o f a ‘world c u ltu re ’, he dem onstrates, are quickly bou n d into national
o r reg io n al cultural profiles an d thereby experience considerable diversification and
tran sfo rm ation (cf. H annerz, Cultural Complexity, esp. p. 264 ff.).
70 R ecent years - especially w here hegem onic superstructures have broken down have o ften seen th e em ergence o f small-state constructs. M oreover on a h ig h er level,
beyond the p articu lar cultures, large cultural alliances are form ing which appeal to a
cu ltu ral com m onality - often one religiously based - and want to assert it politically.
Sam uel P. H u n tin g to n calls these large alliances ‘civilizations’ an d outlines the future
scenario o f a “clash o f civilizations” (Samuel P. H untington, “T he Clash of Civilizations?”,
in: Foreign Affairs, S um m er 1993, 7 2 /3 , pp. 22-49).
71 Cf. R o lan d R o b ertso n , “G lobalization T heory an d Civilizational Analysis”, in:
Comparative Civilizations Review 17, 1987, pp. 20-30.
n Cf. B enjam in B arber, Jihad vs. McWorld, New York: Ballantine, 1996.
73
As u n d ersta n d ab le as it may be to recur to the resources of cultural identity (to the
“ro o ts”) in a situation o f oppression from outside, since they rep rese n t a potential for
resistance to fo reign dom ination, th e consequences are ju s t awkward w hen the basis of
resistance is reta in ed u n altered at the m om ent of its victory an d m ade the new state’s
raison d ’être. It is then, u n d e r the appeal to cultural identity, that reactionary, anti-pluralist
an d tendencially totalitarian states com e about. They exercise in n e r oppression ju st as
they h ad previously been oppressed from the outside. This d anger was pointed o ut by
Je a n François Lyotard: “P ro u d struggles for independence en d in young, reactionary
States” (Jean-François Lyotard, TheDifferend: Phrases in Dispute, M inneapolis: T he University
o f M innesota Press, 1988, p. 181 [262] ). Over the past few decades this has been observable
rep eated ly in Africa and m ost recently in the disintegration o f th e Eastern sphere of
power. N ation states arose with exorbitant fictions of inner hom ogeneity and defences
against o u te r h eterogeneity (cf. R alf D ahrendorf, “E uropa der R egionen?”, in: Merkur
509, A ugust 1991, pp. 703-706, h ere p. 704). Already Popper, as early as 1945, had w arned
th a t th e recourse to roots an d tribes would lead to in n er dictatorship: “T he m ore we try
to re tu rn to the h ero ic age o f tribalism , the m ore surely do we arrive at the Inquisition, at
th e S ecret Police, a n d at a rom anticized gangsterism ” (Karl R. P opper, The Open Society
and its Enemies, P rinceton, N.J.: P rinceton University Press, 1950, p. 195).
83
W o l f g a n g W e l s c ii
is qu ite u n d ersta n d ab le. B ut it is n o t sufficient. As c o n c e rn in g as o n e m ay
find these p h en o m en a , we w o n ’t be able to g e t by w ith o u t taking seriously th e
d e m a n d fo r a specific identity. P eo p le obviously feel co m p e lle d to d e fe n d
them selves a g a in stb e in g m erg ed in to globalized uniform ity. T hey d o n ’tw a n t
ju s t to be universal o r global, b u t also specific a n d o f th e ir own. T h ey w an t to
distinguish them selves from o n e a n o th e r a n d know them selves to b e well
acco m m o d ated in a specific identity. T his d esire is leg itim a te , a n d form s in
which it can be satisfied undangerously sh o u ld b e d e te rm in e d a n d p ro m o te d .74
F u tu re cu ltu ral form s will have to b e such th a t they also c a te r fo r th e d e m a n d
for specifity.
T his m akes clear the advantage o f th e tran sc u ltu rality c o n c e p t over th e
co m p etin g concepts o f globalization a n d p artic u la rizatio n . T h e c o n c e p t o f
transculturality goes b eyond these seem ingly h a rd - b u t all-too o n e-sid ed altern ativ es. It is able to cover b o th g lo b al a n d lo cal, u n iv ersa listic a n d
particularistic aspects, a n d it does so q u ite naturally, in term s o f th e logic o f
transcultural processes themselves. G lobalizing ten d en c ies as well as th e desire
fo r sp e c ifity a n d p a r tic u la rity c a n b e fu lfille d w ith in tr a n s c u ltu r a lity .
T ran scu ltu ral id en tities c o m p re h e n d a co sm o p o lita n side, b u t also a side o f
local affiliation.75 T ran scu ltu ral p e o p le c o m b in e b o th .
74 In so doing, every m ore detailed look at particularism s - at th e ir m otives an d th e ir
problem s - shows that they will be capable o f rem aining stable to som e ex ten t only w hen
they face up to the dem ands of plurality an d th e constitution o f transculturality. T hey are
internally affected by both in several ways. Firstly, this is evident on th e m otivational level:
the new particularism s obviously react to th e overcom ing o f trad itio n al id en tities by
processes o f cultural crossover. Secondly, any particularistic fo rm atio n o f identity finds
itself co n fronted by the transcultural constitution o f its own history. W ithin historical
identities a certain identity m ust be selected, w hich is th e n d eclared to b e the identity alternatives however exist, and differing preferences o f identity are som etim es at odds
with one an o th er within particularistic m ovem ents. Thirdly, it seem s inconceivable th a t
particularistic cultures might, in the long ru n , actually becom e h o m o g en eo u s a n d rem ain
protected against the rise of plurality w ithin themselves. N ot even totally closing th e
territorial an d com m unicational borders could guaran tee this, fo r even now th e re are
already too many nuclei o f plurality within each given culture. F ourthly, everyday life is
characterized by transcultural elem ents everywhere, even w here th e m ost forceful identity
rituals are found. - In general: Features o f plurality an d transculturality reach th ro u g h to
the core o f particularistic identities. T h erefo re every particularism w hich sim ply tries to
deny this plurality and transculturality an d instead to establish forcefully m o n o cu ltu ral
purity - take fundam entalism s as exam ple - is to be criticized arg u m en tativ ely an d
pragmatically has p o o r chances of stability in th e long run. O nly those particularism s
which acknowledge and perm it plurality and transculturality can expect long term success.
75 Cf. R obertson’s term “glocalization” (R. R obertson, Globalization: Social Theory and.
Global Culture, London: Sage, 1992). Cf. also H annerz, “C osm opolitans an d Locals in
W orld C ulture”.
84
T r a n s c u l t u r a l i i y : T iie C h a n g i n g F o r m o f C u l t u r e s T o d a y
O f co u rse, th e local side can even today still be d e te rm in e d by eth n ic
b e lo n g in g o r th e co m m u n ity in w hich o n e grew up. But it d o e s n ’t have to be.
P e o p le ca n m ak e th e ir own ch o ice with respect to their affiliations, a n d they
sh o u ld b e allow ed to d o so.71’Y our actual h o m elan d can b e far away from your
o rig in al h o m e la n d , w hich was p e rh a p s ju s t constriction, p riso n and anguish.
Ubi bene, ibipatria, as was said in antiquity. O r, in a c o n tem p o rary form ulation,
w ith H o rk h e im e r a n d A d o rn o : “H o m e la n d is th e state o f having escaped.”77 I am n o t saying th a t it has to be this way, th at o n e can only fin d a h om e far away
fro m o n e ’s first h o m e o r o rig in al roots. B ut I am em phasizing th at this is a
possible case worthy o f recognition. In a certain sense even o n e ’s first ho m e is only
really h o m e as a sec o n d h o m e. O n e m ust (in view o f o th e r possibilities) have
consciously o p te d fo r it, sub seq u en tly have chosen o r affirm ed it for oneself.
O n ly th e n is ‘h o m e ’ n o t an o u tsh o o t o f n atu re , b u t a cu ltu ral a n d h u m a n
category.
U nlike th e globalization concept, then, the transculturality concept points
o u t th a t in th e m id st o f globalizing uniform ization processes new cultural
d iffe ren c es are fo rm in g at the same time. A nd, unlike th e particularization
co n c e p t, it shows th a t particularism s are co -d eterm in ed th ro u g h to th e core
by un ify in g factors. Its advantage lies, p u t briefly, in th at it is n o t m onocular,
b u t b in o cu lar. It m akes b o th c u rre n t uniform ization p h en o m en a and processes
o f new fo rm a tio n o f d iffe ren c e p ercep tib le a n d u n d ersta n d ab le. It faces u p
to th e dual figure o f fo rm a tio n o f unity and difference™ a n d is h en c e able to
d o ju s tic e to b o th th e globalizing a n d localizing aspects o f th e developm ent.
B oth b e c o m e co m p re h e n sib le in term s o f the logic o f transcultural processes.
*
W ith re g a rd to th e old c o n c e p t o f cu ltu re I have show n how badly it
m isrep re sen ts descriptively to d ay ’s conditions a n d which norm ative dangers
its c o n tin u a tio n o r revival b rin g ab o u t for cu ltu re s’ living together. I have
c o n tra s te d this w ith th e c o n c e p t o f transculturality which draws a d ifferen t
p ictu re descriptively a n d norm atively o f the condition an d relation o f cultures:
n o t o n e o f iso latio n a n d co n flict, b u t o f e n ta n g le m e n t, in term ix in g a n d
7(1 “G rant that we ca n n o t stand outside of any culture. We need n o t therefore be standing
in s id e o f o n e a n d o n ly o n e p a r tic u la r c u ltu r e ” (G u tm a n n , “T h e C h a lle n g e o f
M ulticulturalism in Political Ethics”, p. 192).
77 M ax H o rk h e im e r an d T h e o d o r W. A dorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, transi. J o h n
C um m ing, New York: C ontinuum , 1994, p. 78.
78 O n this cu rre n t signature o f p h en o m en a of difference and entan g lem en t generally
see my Vernunft, I.e.
85
W o l f g a n g W e l s c ii
com m onness. If th e diagnosis given is to som e e x te n t c o rre c t, th e n th e tasks
o f th e fu tu re - in political a n d social, scientific a n d ed u c a tio n a l, artistic a n d
creative respects - are best add ressed th ro u g h a p p ro a c h e s w hich d ec id ed ly
take tran scu ltu rality into account.
86