Semantic misunderstandings on transculturation and disciplinary hesitation
This essay contributes to the archeology of the concept of transculturation, its use and its relevance nowadays. This goal implies summarizing the anthropological debates between the thirties and forties and analyzing the use of the concept “transculturation” - until now not mentioned - in the thoug...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Museo de Antropología
2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/antropologia/article/view/15895 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | This essay contributes to the archeology of the concept of transculturation, its use and its relevance nowadays. This goal implies summarizing the anthropological debates between the thirties and forties and analyzing the use of the concept “transculturation” - until now not mentioned - in the thought of Carlos Real de Azúa, mediated by the classicist Gilbert Highet. I aim to demonstrate how transculturation and “acculturation” have been used as synonyms in certain humanistic contexts. Finally, I will assay the reasons for the “disappearance” of the trajectory of Fernando Ortiz, debtor of the reading of Angel Rama. The doubt about the heuristic value of the category of transculturation, is an effective means to understand some current debates between anthropology and cultural studies. |
|---|