Transculturalismo, Not "Aesthetic Transnationalism"

           Last week when we began exploring the transnational field of American Literature, I expected a strong scholarly divide in the articles we read. One side cheering for the move and the other, perhaps more cautious, overwhelmed, and neutral. I knew I would find myself somewhere in a liminal range leaning towards “transnational,” but knowing that what most mean by transnational is not necessarily what scholars envision. How did I know where I would stand about a literary transnational mindset? My research interests are in translingual rhetoric and composition. I have encountered many of these questions about where and how to draw the limits to “trans”: How does transnational defy or reassert power dynamics? Is transnational a more inclusive or exclusive disposition? And as Wess pointed out on my first blog, does a transnational identity “suppress” or “erase” the original identity?

Because of these questions I found Winfried Fluck’s “A New Beginning?: Transnationalisms” very intriguing,  but problematic. While I appreciated Fluck’s acknowledgement that transnationalism can imply more than one interpretation, I found his category of “aesthetic transnationalism” limiting.  Fluck utilizes Levander’s and Fishkin’s Presidential Address to reduce transnationalism to a “phenomena [which] enrich[es], revitalize[es], sometimes intoxicat[es] experience” (368) or  simply, a shift which compels American culture to become “a happy global mélange in which it feels quite at home, because the global dominance of American culture receives an entirely new explanation” (369). In short, Fluck poses aesthetic transnationalism—one out of the two categories he creates for transnationalism—as a utopian neoliberal borderless society. Fluck then adds that “the narrative of transnational rejuvenation is therefore also the narrative of enrichment and empowerment, and in this respect comes uncomfortably close to a neoliberal celebration of free flow” (371). Here, Fluck not only sees “aesthetic transnationalism” as the ultimate global model, but also in service of the construction of nation and its narrative of U.S. exceptionalism. While some scholars may foresee transnationalism in the ways suggested by Fluck in his category of “aesthetic transnationalism,” the roots of transnationalism mindset suggest otherwise.

 Contact zones—the result of various forms of transnationalisms—as proposed by Pratts, or transculturalismo as first introduced by Ortiz in 1940, both deal with grappling with cross-cultural interactions and their complexities. This can be seen in the way that Patricia Bizell envisions contact zones in her article “‘Contact Zones’ and English Studies.” Bizell writes, “In short, I am suggesting that we organize English studies not in terms of literary or chronological periods, nor essentialized racial or gender categories, but rather in terms of historically defined contact zones, moments when different groups within the society contend for the power to interpret what is going on” (167). Here, Bizell argues that studies structured within contact zones promote context not only as a way for awareness, but for critical thinking in a system which can never function outside of the dynamics of power. This is the issue I find most disconcerting with Fluck’s idea of “aesthetic transnationalism,” the notion that any disposition may all of the sudden function outside the dynamics of power. Contact zones are always grounded in power dynamics because the concept of nation seems much too ingrained in our society.  And even though transnationalism may indeed create problematic results, as demonstrated in Alex Rivera’s talk on “Transnationalism and the Digital Nation” (Worsham Theatre, University of Kentucky, 18 Sept. 2013) it shows a stronger inclination for the exposition of diverse texts and voices within the nation. In addition, it permits a more nuanced exploration of widely read texts and their influences—so texts like Ulysess never have to leave the scenario. Therefore transnationalism may be envisioned as a moment of contact as the context for study. For example, situating power struggles, political analyses of culture, domination and resistance across borders.

As Mignolo argues, a transnational mindset illuminates contact zones and complicates our reading of texts and their “historical” significance for inventing the Americas, however, the question of identity still remains (The Idea of Latin America 2-8, 145-148). Certainly some is lost, but it seems that much is also gained. For example, the Latino identity is a result of transnationalism, not individual or national identity—one which is highly debated and contested by Latin Americans and Spaniards, but for those who fall under the category in the United States, it has served to promote a voice and attention to how Latinos have been a part of the nation since its conception.