The Transcultural and the Anglophone World

Preface

Transculturality is a versatile concept that can be understood as a method of inquiry, a theoretical framework, and a process of identity formation. Employing a transcultural perspective when analysing sociocultural phenomena, such as literary works and artistic creations, yields substantial advantages. When embraced in earnest, this approach transcends the status of a passing trend and is not confined to any particular ideology or divisive political activism. Its strength lies in its broad scope. As a heuristic approach, transculturality challenges rigid interpretations, seeking to complexify and deepen our understanding, uncover additional dimensions, question the reigning doxa and encourage more nuanced interpretations of the issues that arise when cultures interact.

Fifteen years ago, upon returning to academia to pursue a PhD after a career in international reporting and creative writing, I was drawn to the open-ended nature of the transcultural. Equipped with valuable research funds from the University of South Australia and an outsider’s perspective shaped by two decades of cultural experiences across four continents, I brought a sense of practical sobriety to my academic journey. However, as I immersed myself in my transdisciplinary dissertation, bridging cultural studies and migrant literature, I grew increasingly uneasy with specific attitudes prevalent in some humanities departments, particularly those within the so-called Anglosphere. I detected a tendency towards conformity of an ideological nature and a sense of moralistic intransigence, which hindered the exploration of new territories and the engagement with emerging cultural moods that deviated from or challenged established norms. This tendency was concerning, given that academic institutions should inherently encourage the questioning of assumed truths and promote intellectual curiosity.

Focusing more closely on my area of research, I noticed a prevailing trend in which academic work was primarily examined through postcolonial and multicultural theoretical lenses, often combined with strict adherence to principles of identity politics. Paradoxically and in a sort of heterogenesis of purpose, this attitude paved the way to the perpetuation of cultural stereotyping and ghettoization, undermining the very principles these perspectives sought to uphold. While recognizing the significance of these theoretical frameworks, their uncritical application, often by students who merely reiterated established ideas, gave me cause for concern, pushing me even more convincingly towards an approach that, by its very nature, is open, inclusive and accommodative of outlooks that sometimes even conflict with each other. By embracing such an approach, I aimed to challenge the limitations of existing frameworks and foster a more nuanced understanding of cultural interactions and identities.

Now, fifteen years later, amidst the changing dynamics of contemporary societies and global migrancy, we are witnessing a notable shift away from the postcolonial paradigm towards an enthusiastic adoption of the ‘transcultural view’. While I certainly welcome this development, I feel compelled to offer a word of caution. Embracing the transcultural perspective should not be seen as a one-size-fits-all solution; rather, it demands careful consideration and a thorough understanding of its theoretical underpinnings and, most importantly, its inherent limitations. We must avoid the temptation of falling into yet another ideological trap, wherein trendy academic buzzwords and catchy neologisms are hastily adopted only to be discarded when the winds of academic discourses shift. Hence, I am grateful for the opportunity I was offered to pen this preface, with which I hope to contribute to a more informed and nuanced understanding of this approach and its potential implications for the future of cultural studies and literature on mobility.

For me, it is crucial to emphasize that the theory of the transcultural, also referred to as transculturality, should not be viewed as a mere replacement for the postcolonial paradigm (or postcolonialism), now seemingly cast aside by many. Although the transcultural perspective operates on different premises and requires clarification of its core principles, it incorporates the insights from postcolonialism and multiculturalism, alongside those from national contentment and cosmopolitanism. However, it avoids the divisive fixation on difference characteristic of the former and the overly idealistic views of the latter.

At its core, a transcultural analytical approach directs attention towards commonalities, shared elements and interconnections among cultures, rather than dwelling on their irreconcilable divisions. This perspective acknowledges that clashes between cultures are inevitable, while simultaneously encouraging dialogue and exchange. It recognizes that ruptures, misunderstandings, tensions and negotiations are intrinsic to this process.

Recent conceptualizations of the transcultural by scholars such as Wolfgang Welsch (1999, 2002, 2009, 2024) and Mikhail Epstein (2009) have garnered the attention of those seeking to move beyond traditional dichotomies and binary oppositions, such as dominant versus subordinate and colonizer versus colonized cultures. These dichotomies and oppositions have been inherent in early theorizations (Ortiz 1947) and subsequent postcolonial interpretations of transculturation processes between so-called ‘peripheral’ and imperial cultures (Pratt 1992).

In this regard, I would like to emphasize that the transcultural perspective is most relevant when applied at the individual level, making it particularly valuable for examining literary works and artistic expressions in connection with their authors’ cultural backgrounds. While transculturality reflects the experiences of individuals navigating multiple cultures, its application on a large scale and at a collective level poses challenges. Unlike assimilationist, multiculturalist or nationalist policies targeting societies as a whole, transcultural-based approaches are difficult to devise and impractical for government enforcement due to the intricate nature of individual identities and cultural affiliations. Therefore, transculturality should not be construed as an ideology or a political stance, as the term transculturalism, often used interchangeably, might imply. Instead, it should be viewed as an analytical and conceptual framework that serves as a means for identity formation and functions as a critical tool for creative expression and resistance against cultural homogenization.

In the world of literature, the transcultural lens (Dagnino 2012, 2013, 2015; Schulze-Engler and Helff 2009) offers a valuable perspective for identifying and understanding the works of writers who often draw from their personal migrant or transnational experiences. These authors challenge the idea of cultures, particularly ‘national’ cultures, as polarizing monoliths or mutually exclusive entities. Instead, they perceive cultures as complex systems that engage in dialogue with one another through ongoing processes of intercultural exchange, blending, confluence, influence and mediation. This perspective complicates the identification of a singular origin, a ‘pure’ initial source, or a distinct cultural lineage (Trojanow and Hoskoté 2012).

Writers who embrace this transcultural approach contribute to the development of a literature that transcends the boundaries of a single culture and nation. By doing so, they foster a broader literary viewpoint and potentially offer a novel way of conceiving and experiencing identity that does not overemphasize differences based on ethnicity, nationality, geographical location or religious affiliation. This literature encourages a more inclusive understanding of the complexities of human experience and the interconnectedness of our globalized world.

However, it is important to recognize that outgrowing one’s primary culture and affiliations does not mean disowning them and their foundational role; rather, it involves refusing to be confined by them. The Russian émigré Mikhail Epstein (1995: 306) urges us to move beyond the diversity of cultures towards ‘the even greater diversity of individuals’, a model that can appeal not only to specific minorities but also to the universal potentials of human understanding. This approach helps reduce the risk of cultural stagnation and conflicts between oppositional cultural allegiances. As Epstein (2009: 347) remarks, ‘Where there are stiff and “proud” identities, there are also oppositions fraught with violence. As a rule, violence occurs between groups with firmly established identities, which remain impenetrable for each other and thus aspire to mutual extinction’.

Embracing a transcultural perspective acknowledges the need for a flexible and adaptable method of inquiry suited to the contemporary context of global mobility, global writing and global languages. According to Alistair Pennycook (2007, 2010), this entails viewing not only cultures but also their linguistic expressions as social activities (practices) that incorporate local elements, agency and context within their complex interactions, constantly undergoing processes of translation and negotiation. In the face of contemporary cultural globalization, with its inherent challenges and inevitable counter-reactions, and on the brink of what Peter Burke (2009: 115) identifies as a ‘new form of cultural order’, the pursuit of new interpretative frameworks, theoretical paradigms and terminology becomes crucial. These tools will better enable us to analyse emerging transcultural literary works, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the evolving global literary landscape and its complexities.

Transculturality provides a fresh discursive space for critically examining the cultural implications and creative manifestations of global modernity. Through this expansive lens, which transcends national and cultural borders, disciplinary confines and established literary canons, we can uncover the underlying relationships between literary works across nations and diverse cultural and linguistic expressions. This approach highlights the ongoing complex dynamics of cultural encounters, clashes, negotiations and transformations. As author Ilija Trojanow (2009: 130) argues, ‘If we want to be armed for the future, we have to understand that our frontiers are confluences which in the past have fertilized us, the playgrounds of mixed cultures which have been and still are of capital importance for our evolution. What divides us is nothing but an ephemeral difference, a blink in the eye of history’. By embracing transculturality, we acknowledge the significance of cultural exchange and integration in shaping our collective imagination, fostering a more inclusive and interconnected understanding of literatures and cultures.

Arianna Dagnino