Engler, Balz, and Lucia Michalcak (eds.). 2007. Cultures in Contact. SPELL 19.
Table of Contents
Introduction 11
Arif Dirlik (
In Search of Contact Zones: Nations, Civilizations, and the
Spaces of Culture 15
Roger D. Sell (
Literary Scholarship as Mediation: An Approach to Cultures
Past and Present 35
Robin Blyn (
To Be or Not to Be a Humanist?: Anthropological Stage Fright
in the Age of Cultural Relativism 59
Danièle Klapproth (Universities of
Narrating Across Cultural Boundaries – or “Where Were
Rocky’s Father’s Brothers?” 77
Patrick H. Vincent (
The Professor and the Fox: Louis Agassiz, Henry David
Thoreau and “The Two Cultures” 95
Lukas Bleichenbacher (
“This is meaningless – It’s in Russian”: Multilingual Characters
in Mainstream Movies 111
Michael C. Prusse (
“East is East” or Transcultural Cosmopolitanism? Positions on
Cross-Cultural Encounters in Postcolonial Theory and in a
Series of “Passages to
Mara Cambiaghi (
Christine Brooke-Rose’s Routes of Belonging: Remake 149
Note from the general editor, September 2009
Hartwig Isernhagen (
“Clash of Civilizations”, Or: A Plea for Satire 185
Notes on Contributors 203
Index of Names 207
In Search of Contact Zones:
Nations, Civilizations, and the Spaces of Culture
Arif Dirlik
This article argues against the identification of culture with units such as nations, civilizations and continents. It uses the examples of
Literary Scholarship as Mediation:
An Approach to Cultures Past and Present
Roger D. Sell
This paper suggests that one of the main roles of the literary scholar is as a mediator between different sociocultural positionalities, past and present. If literary scholars, together with scholars in other areas of the humanities, were to shoulder this task more boldly, and if its value were more broadly recognised within educational institutions at all levels, then conflicts between different groupings, both smaller and larger, might in the long run be easier to resolve. For this to happen, however, scholars will need to ground themselves on something like a distinction between distorted and genuine communication, and on an account of literature in particular as one among other forms of genuine communication. Some such view will make the ethical, hermeneutic, and evaluative dimensions of literary-scholarly mediation especially easy to grasp. So equipped, scholars will be well placed to promote a sense of the literary community as indefinitely large and indefinitely heterogeneous. The point being that, when duly mediated, a literary text is neither universal in the way suggested by Johnson, Arnold and Leavis, nor a site of inevitable cultural conflict in the way suggested by much postmodern theory.
To Be or Not to Be a Humanist?: Anthropological Stage Fright in the Age of Cultural Relativism
Robin Blyn
The strange centrality of Hamlet in Laura Bohannan’s Shakespeare in the Bush (1966) and Clifford Geertz’s From the Native’s point of view (1974) effectively hides from interpretive anthropology in its formative years its own anxieties about the consequences of relativism for ethnographic authority. By returning to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Bohannan’s and Geertz’s essays return, ironically, to the universalist paradigm they each ostensibly reject. Hamlet, then, becomes the contested site wherein each essay discovers its inability to authorize the agenda it has set for itself. Specifically, the Shakespearean text becomes the site wherein cultural relativism as an epistemological stance fails to authorize the ethnographic subjects who have, however unwittingly, come to its defense. It is precisely because of the anxieties it provokes that interpretive anthropology’s paradigm of cultural relativism continues to haunt even our most contemporary theories of cross-cultural contact.
Narrating Across Cultural Boundaries – or
“Where Were Rocky’s Father’s Brothers?”
Danièle Klapproth
This paper explores the question to what extent narrative communication is guided by culture-specific conventions of discursive organisation, and narrating across cultural boundaries may therefore pose problems for mutual understanding. The paper adopts a discourse-analytical, comparative approach and is based on the author’s linguistic-anthropological fieldwork in a Central Australian Aboriginal community. It is shown that – contrary to Anglo-Western story conventions – Australian Aboriginal narratives are not conceptualised as protagonist-centred problem-solving episodes, but rather use narrative schemata that are centred around character nexuses and focus on cause-and-effect chains. It is argued that the narrative schemata acquired through language socialisation serve as frameworks for interpretation and are intrinsically related to culture-specific ways of viewing and making sense of the world.
The Professor and the Fox:
Louis Agassiz, Henry David Thoreau and “The Two Cultures”
Patrick H. Vincent
. . . in him perhaps
Science had barred the gate that lets in dream,
And he would rather count the perch and bream.
James Russell Lowell,
This essay examines the relationship between Louis Agassiz and Henry David Thoreau as an example of “two cultures” in contact. It argues that Thoreau used various forms of parody to undermine the authority both of
“This is meaningless – It’s in Russian”:
Multilingual Characters in Mainstream Movies
Lukas Bleichenbacher
Is Russian dialogue in
“East is East” or Transcultural Cosmopolitanism? Positions on Cross-Cultural Encounters in Postcolonial Theory and in a Series of
“Passages to India ”
Michael C. Prusse
Postcolonial critics Homi Bhabha and Aijaz Ahmad disagree on the effects of migration and the ensuing cross-cultural encounters. Bhabha stresses the empowerment resulting from switching between cultures, whereas Ahmad dismisses this phenomenon as postmodern alienation. These critical positions are reflected in a series of “Passages to
Christine Brooke-Rose’s Routes
of Belonging: Remake
Mara Cambiaghi
In this age of globalisation, Christine Brooke-Rose may represent an interesting case of cultural diaspora internal to
“Clash of Civilizations,” Or: A Plea for Satire
Hartwig Isernhagen
These are not good times for satire. However prominent terms such as difference and conflict may have been in theorizations of interculturality, as well as in the wide field of postcolonial criticism, they are regularly and programmatically subjected to and contextualized within perspectives of pacification and mediation that are inimical to satire. This is a censoring move that is motivated by the historical experiences of the twentieth century, and thus entirely “comprehensible,” but that entails its own dangers. This essay briefly lists some of those dangers and argues that the reality of aggression in intercultural interaction cannot be dealt with through acts of denial, but only through modes and mechanisms of communication that will release and transform such aggression in ways ultimately not destructive of the social or civilized bond that should exist even between those separated by profound difference and grave conflicts. It recognizes satire as one such mode.