Transculturation

Ethnoconvergence is a relatively new term to describe the phenomenon of merging and converging cultures. In a modern context, this reflects communication and transportation technology's effects in countering cultural divergence - the tendncies of societies to drift apart is fast being replaced by a tendency for then to come together.

Unfortunately, the process of this convergence is incredibly complex, and often volatile. Consider the basic ethnoconvergence model, where the driving force for it is proximity. In one general sense, ethnoconvergence contains within it the subheadings of war, ethnic conflict, racism, multiculturalism, interracial marriage, and any other of a myriad topics that deal with more than one culture.

In another general sense, ethnoconvegence is the positive aspect of the global phenomenae, perhaps best described simply as human events. And the negative, conflicted themes reside within another category, perhaps "ethnodivergence", should there be a need for a term. However, the caveat to this is change - via human mortality. And the inability of societies to maintain divisions over generations, despite its attempts to engrain divisive elements. As parents die, their children have the opportunity to reflect upon the nature and validity of established non-convergent precepts, and change them if they like. These changes often represent differences between homeland populations, and their diasporic communities abroad.

What this means, is that the obstacles to 'ethnoconvergence are not great - the primary issue - language, ( hence, communication and education) can, be overcome within a single generation - as is evident in fascile acclimation children of foreign parents. English, for example, is spoken by more non-Anglo-American people than Anglo-Americans, making it the current lingua-franca, the worldwide defacto-standard international language.

Opinions on ethnoconvergence

However, it is observed that even in monolingual, industrial societies like urban North America, some individuals do cling to a "modernized" primordial identity, apart from others. Some intellectuals, such as Michael Ignatieff, argue that convergence of culture does not necessarily mean convergence of ethnic identities. This can become evident in social situations, where people divide into separate groups.

This is another peculiarity: some individuals tend to see it perfectly justified to assimilate and some others view assimilation as illiberal and politically incorrect.

Often it's in a secular, multi-ethnic environment that cultural concerns are both minimalised and exaccerbated; Ethnic prides are boasted, hierarchy is created ( "center" culture versus "periphery") but on the other hand, they will still share a common "culture", and common language and behaviours. Often the elderly, more conservative-in-association of a clan, tend to reject cross-cultural associations, and participate in ethnically similar community-oriented activities. Xenophobes tend to think of cross-cultural contact as a component of assimilation, and see this as harmful.

The obstacle to ethnoconvergence is ethnocentrism, which is the view that one's culture is of greater importance than anothers.' Ethnocentrism often takes different forms, as it is a highly personal bias, and manifests itself in countless aspects of culture. Relgion, or belief, is the prime ethnocentric divider. Second is custom, which may overlap religion. With the adherence to each distinct component, comes the repulsion of the other. In most regions, ethnic divides are binary, meaning only two distinct cultures are present, each seeing the other as foreign. Many, however make the point that the binary example is the exception, and the norm is far more dynamic.

We can divide ethnicity into two distinct areas, as they relate to ethnoconvergence: Utilitarian traits, and traditional customs. Language usually falls into the first category, as people often do not attach to language a highly ethnic value. Learning a foreign language does not, in the eyes of most people, constitute a forfeiting of ones cultural heritage.

Religion, on the other hand, is a highly personal and attached part of culture. However, religion does not neatly correspond with ethnic identity. In many cosmopolitan societies, religion is everything - social, utilitarian, intellectual, political; from the point of view of people of immersed cultures; The very concept of ethnicity and its distinctions is incongruous to their immersed concepts.

In many societies, such as in those in Europe, languages are considered a significant component of ethnic values. This belies the fact that most Europeans reject learning other learn other languages. Quite the contrary, Europeans are often polyglots, and may label other individuals by their ethnicities; practical means of distinguishing cultures may resemble tendencies similar to ethnocentrism.

However, the political and cultural significance of regional or national languages are retained due to the fact that these polyglots conform to the linguistic norms of the place they visit - doing "as the Romans do". Thus, conforming to the "ethnic integrity" of the region.

It has even become a cliche that "to learn a new language is to adopt a new soul". There are many other examples of the essential significance of language. In pre-Russian Siberia, Tatar-Mongol colonists in the Taiga often recognized Turkic-speaking indigenous groups as their "own people" and non-Turkic groups as "foreigners". This is in spite of the fact that these indigenous groups had a similar level of material culture, and shared much of a primitive culture with tribes foreign to the Muslim-Buddhist Tatar-Mongols.

See also:

• multiculturalism