Polyphonic Bricolage – Caribbean Cultures in New York City

by

Bettina E. Schmidt

Department of Cultural Anthropology University of Marburg

Kugelgasse 10 35032 Marburg

Germany Tel: +49-6421-2823749 Fax: +49-6421-2822140

Email: bschmidt@mailer.uni-marburg.de

Session Panel: City View 3: Strategies of Survival: Latino Migrants in the U.S.

CUL043 Saturday 5:00-7:00 pm

Prepared for delivery at the 2003 meeting of the Latin American Studies Association,

Dallas, Texas, March 27-29, 2003

2

Bettina E. Schmidt1

Polyphonic Bricolage – Caribbean Cultures in New York City Introduction A problem with many postmodern cultural theories is that they look on societies as a holistic entity, but forget the individual cases of human culture. Cultural concepts seem to be construed nearly without human beings. But when we look on specific cultures as the cultura criolla in the Caribbean all senses are touched. One can see, touch, smell, hear and taste the Caribbean, as Antonio Bentítez Rojo writes. It is a Caribbean of senses, emotions and sentiments (1989:xiii). Therefore we need a cultural concept that includes the »human touch«. With the following collage, Carlos Monsiváis characterizes perfectly the dynamism of today Latin American culture:

„Cablevisión. Comics de superhéroes. Humor rápido y malamente traducido. Infinitud de productores que sacian, inventan y modifican necesidades. Programas de televisión cuya apoteosis semanal se nutre de la victoria del sistema de justicia norteamericana. Libros (best-séller) donde la mecánica del éxito programa la imaginación y la escritura. Tecnologías refinadísimas. Videocasetes. Comunicación por satélite. Ideología de la Ville Global macluhaniana. Videodiscos. Estrategias de consumo cuya implacable logística destruye toda perspectiva artesanal. ‘Filosofía’ del vendedor más grande del mundo. Películas que han impuesto mundialmente el ritmo, la temática y el punto de vista de la industria norteamericana. Software y hardware. Agencias internacionales de noticias. Desdén ante la historia de cada nación. Homogeneización de los estilos de vida ‘deseables’. Imposición de un lenguaje mundial. Circuito de la ‘revolución informática’. Revistas que redistribuyen la ‘feminidad’. Reordenamiento periódico de hábitos de vida ajustables a los cambios tecnológicos.“ (Monsiváis 1983: 75)

Cultures are not homogenous entities. They are full of breaks, contradictions and dynamism. Based on my observations among Caribbean migrants in New York City, I will try to develop a cultural concept that includes the individual treatment. The basis foundation of the following discussion is La Pensée Sauvage by Claude Lévi-Strauss. 1. Bricolage in the Meaning of Claude Lévi-Strauss In La Pensée Sauvage Claude Lévi-Strauss breaks the limits of his own, sometimes a bit static concept of structuralism. His »science du concret« presents magnificently how utopian the »predominance of European thinking« is. Though his idea originates in small societies, his model of bricolage influences my investigation of urban communities.

1 Dr. Bettina E. Schmidt, Assistant Professor at the Department of Anthropology, Philipps-University Marburg, Visiting Professor at the Department of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies, City University of New York; and at the Departamento de Antropología, Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco, Peru. Postdoctoral Thesis (Habilitation) on the Caribbean diaspora in the context of cultural theories of Latin America; fieldwork in Mexico, Puerto Rico, Ecuador and New York City; research on religion, migration, urban anthropology and performance studies.

3

The term bricolage was introduced into the anthropological debate about 40 years ago as a metaphor for the mythical thinking of traditional societies. In myths and rites Lévi-Strauss discovered »modes d’observation et de réflexion«, that implicate a mode of discovery, „celles qu‘autorisait la nature, à partir de l’organisation et de l’exploitation spéculatives du monde sensible en termes de sensible“ (1962:25). This »science du concret« is no less scientific than the natural sciences and results in no less real findings. Lévi-Strauss compares this way of thinking with technical handicraft. While the term bricoleur originally integrates a not marked movement, today it represents a person, „qui œuvre de ses mains, en utilisant des moyens détournés par comparaison avec ceux de l‘homme de l’art.“ (1962:26). And this method can also be seen in mythical thinking:

« Or, le propre de la pensée mythique est de s‘exprimer à l‘aide d’un répertoire dont la composition est hétéroclite et qui, bien qu’étendu, reste tout de même limité; pourtant, il faut qu’elle s’en serve, quelle que soit la tâche qu‘elle s‘assigne comme une sorte de bricolage intellectuel, ce qui explique les relations qu‘on observe entre les deux. » (1962 :26)

As a do-it-yourselfer mythical thinking uses a limited number of means to develop a solution to a problem in a concrete situation. The creation process is limited in a continuously new arrangement of elements that were used in other situations and with a different function. Lévi-Strauss, who regarded himself as a do-it-yourselfer (in La Potière Jalouse), does not develop an opposition between both ways of thinking, the mythical and the (natural) scientific, or even construe an evolutionary development between both concepts as some of his critics argue. Though the science of the concrete was developed ten thousand years ago and was valued by Lévi-Strauss as basis for our civilization, he argues against the degradation of mythical thinking as primitive. He illustrates his evaluation with the argument that even in our societies, mythical thinking exists, in particular in art and architecture. Lévi-Strauss stress the creativity of mythical thinking, the creative energy of human beings that in the end breaks through structuralism. In the reception of La Pensée Sauvage the critics often do not see the creativity and argue only against the static dichotomy of structuralism. Octavio Paz, for instance, criticizes the polar schema of Lévi-Strauss in reference to the Latin American reality, in particular to the fundamental non-simultaneity of societies and cultures in Latin America. In Latin America different kinds of cultures and societies exist simultaneous (an important aspect of the postmodern debate in Latin America). Paz argues that European societies are very simple and linear, and that Europeans have only developed a limited conception of history. Therefore we have problems in understanding different historical ideas such as the Chinese or the Latin American:

“Inclusive podría decirse que sólo el Occidente moderno se ha identificado plena y frenéticamente con la historia, al grado de definir al hombre como ser histórico, con evidente ignorancia y desdén de las ideas que las otras civilizaciones se han hecho de sí mismas y de la especia humana.“ (1993: 82.)

European societies – and with them also North American – value progress too highly and limit the diversity of their own societies. Paz praises Lévi-Strauss in particular for his vehement critique of the European dream of progress, the central idea of European societies. Paz states that – based on Montaigne, Rousseau, Sahagún and Las Casas – Lévi-Strass was the first to „respectar a los otros y cambiar a los suyos, comprender lo

4

extraño y criticar lo propio“ (1993:89). Despite his enthusiasm for Lévi-Strauss’ critique of European progressive thinking, Paz argues against the dichotomy of structure and history in La Pensée Sauvage, that is not essential for Latin Americans:

„En un primer movimiento, [Lévi-Strauss] reduce la pluralidad de las sociedades e historias a una dicotomía que las engloba y las disuelve: pensamiento salvaje y pensamiento domesticado. Enseguida, descubre que esta oposición es parte de otra oposición fundamental: naturaleza y cultura. En un tercer momento, revela la identidad entre las dos últimas: los productos de la cultura – mitos, instituciones, lenguaje – no son esencialmente distintos a los productos naturales ni obedecen a leyes diferentes a las que rigen a sus homólogos, las células.“ (1993: 119)

Paz continues that “para Rousseau el hombre natural era el hombre pasional; para Lévi-Strauss las pasiones y la sensibilidad son también relaciones y no escapan a la razón y al número, a las matemáticas. La naturaleza humana, ya que no una esencia ni una idea, es un concierto, una ratio, una proporción“ (1993: 120). Here, Paz finally separates himself from Lévi-Strauss and his bi-polar model, but without developing an alternative. Paz’s critique of bricolage illustrates a fundamental problem: Paz, as do most Latin American intellectuals, regards himself and Mexican society as part of the modern world, while Lévi-Strauss differentiates between the European and the non-European world. This relict of colonial tradition in European models must create contradiction in Latin America, where the population is neither European nor Non-European, but has develop a third way. In the schema of Lévi-Strauss there is no place for mixture. Ulf Hannerz even criticizes that his description of the cultures nearly can be regarded as apartheid (1998:161). But Lévi-Strauss does not analyze ethnographic reality; instead he has developed a schema of thinking. Instead of real subjects he works with the collective unconsciousness, an abstract human being. In this way Lévi-Strauss argues against the valuation of different ways of thinking. Nevertheless, the static of his bi-polar system often hinders the translation of other systems, so that in the end Paz, although the writings of Lévi-Strauss have inspired him, cannot find himself within this system. 2. An Overview of Latin American Cultural Theories Latin American theorists have developed different ways to interpret cultural concepts. Latin American cultures were often used as a base for developing theories of cultural mixture. As Magus Mörner writes, „no part of the world has ever witnessed such a gigantic mixing of races as the one that has been taken place in Latin America and the Caribbean since 1492“ (1967: 1). And this process continues and develops very diverse mixtures. Not only the colonial mixture of Indigenous, African and European cultures has developed differently in every country, contemporary influences such as migration movements and new communication media change every country in its own way. Latin American scientists react with developing a multitude of cultural theories concerning the new mixtures. 2.1 Mestizaje The starting point of the theories about the mixture of cultures was a biological thesis: the mixture of races is based on a mixture of cultures: or, the other way around, the mixture of races results in a mixture of cultures. Ana María Díaz Stevens and Anthony Stevens-Arroyo write that José Vasconcelos was the first to use the term mestizaje as a political concept in 1925 as a characterization of a national culture based on genetic or

5

biological aspects. After World War II mestizaje became a central concept of populist movements (1998:7). The ideology of mestizaje was used to confirm the similarity – or hide the diversity – of different groups in a homogenous national society. Mestizaje was in this meaning a literary topos that took an important part in construing a nationalist ideology, which is even more important than its scientific usage (Lienhard 1996: 66-67). The scientific discourse about mestizaje marked an important change in the perspective on Latin America in the second half of the 20th century because it changed the negative connotation of mixed creatures into a positive connotation. In the colonial period, mestizos were regarded as weak, barbarous, uncivilized, and also terrifying and beastly. They were illegitimate, without the rights of their Spanish parents. The colonists should guard the limpieza de sangre, as the Spanish government ordered. Even in the second half of the 19th century, mestizos were made culpable of social and political defects of the new republics because of their weak character (see Mason 1990). During the 20th century this paradigm changed. After World War II Latin American intellectuals began to praise the mezcla de sangres as a utopian image of a harmonious mixture. With Magnus Mörner the ideological usage of mestizaje received a new meaning with a scientific basis. He distinguished between biological mixture and acculturation even when in Latin America biological mixture was the motor of the acculturation, as Mörner writes (1967:5). His famous study about the Sociedad de Castas started the scientific discourse about mestizaje. He illustrated that the ethnic stratification of the colonial period was based on social aspects, and that the interethnic separation between Indians, mestizos and Spaniards was based on their social position. Influenced by Mörner and his followers, the critique of mestizaje as a national concept grew. Mestizaje praised the birth of contemporary Latin American societies out of the mixture of Indigenous, European and African tradition – without regarding the actual situation of the marginalized groups. While the process of mixture was questioned, the social problems and the interethnic process of societies of today were accepted nearly without question. Mestizos were glorified as national symbols, but not as subjects (Klor de Alva 1995). Apart of its pluralistic foundation mestizaje continued to be a homogenous concept. The Other, whether it was an Indigene or an European, is integrated in a homogenous unity and changed into oneself. But the fact was neglected that the Indigenes were nevertheless marginalized group, at the border of the society. Indigenous cultures became folkloristic elements of nations of mestizos. 2.2 Cultural Heterogeneity and Hybridity Out of this critique of mestizaje, Latin American theorists construed new concepts based on a concept of cultural heterogeneity. In contrast to mestizaje, cultural heterogeneity pointed to the social situation of the Indigenes and questioned the theory of mixture. Instead of describing a future assimilation of the marginalized groups, more and more theorists praised the cultural diversity of Latin American cultures. Raúl Bueno defines cultural heterogeneity based on Antonio Conejo Polar as: „La heterogeneidad, en cambio, tiende a la individuación de los especimenes en contacto, dentro de la línea alterizante basada en la afirmación de las diferencias. Su característica es la insolubilidad de los elementos en juego, es decir, su capacidad de afirmar la discontinuidad cultural, esto es, de marcar las fisuras que establecen la pluricultura.” (Bueno 1996: 28) The term cultural heterogeneity unifies different theoretical concepts that all describe a pluralistic image of society.

6

„La ‘heterogeneidad cultural’ latinoamericana (mestizaje de identidades; hibridismo de tradiciones; cruzamientos de lenguas) habría incluso conformado – por fragmentación y diseminación – una especie de ‘postmodernismo avant la lettre’, según el cual Latinoamérica, tradicionalmente subordinada e imitativa, pasaría a ser hoy precursora de lo que la cultura posmoderna consagra como novedad: por amalgamiento de signos, por injertos y trasplantes histórico-culturales de códigos disjuntos, el mosaico latinoamericano habría prefigurado el collage posmodernista.” (Richard 1994: 216-217)

As Nelly Richard writes, the concept of hybridity is integrated in the postmodern discourse of Latin America that has a different origin than the postmodern concept in Europe and North America. Néstor García Canclini introduced the most important theory within this debate. His concept of the culturas híbridas influenced the debate of cultural theories in Latin America fundamentally. At the end of the 1980s he questioned the dichotomy of tradition and modern and looked on the hybridity of urban societies. Most studies of cultural heterogeneity and hybridity are done in urban Latin America because the urban expansion intensifies the process of hybridization (García Canclini 1990: 265). While mestizaje-studies investigated New Spain and the colonization of America, hybridity-studies investigate the MacDonald- and MTV-societies while looking on the influences of the new communication mediums and the globalization on Latin American societies. García Canclini illustrates a critical image of the Mexican society on its way to a global century in which the US-market is more important than the Mexican. Postmodern societies are in a transformation process and have lost, as he criticizes, the subject. In his analysis he argues against the dichotomy of modern and tradition or rural and urban because they cannot describe the cultural diversity of the national culture and its de-centralistic structure. To characterize the intercultural mixtures he uses the term hybridity. Though the term was first used in botany, García Canclini never used the term hybridity with this pejorative meaning in contrast to the British and North American usage of hybridity. Homi K. Bhabha, who introduced the term hybrid on the colonial discourse as replacement for mimicry (Bhabha 1985: 154-155), uses the term based on British tradition (see Young 1995 for information about the British school). His Latin American colleagues, on the other hand, regard hybridity as a creative concept, based on a definition of hybridity developed in literary studies. García Canclini uses the term in the meaning of Tzvetan Todorov who was inspired by Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian literary studies scientific. Bakhtin characterized with the term hybrid the variety of speaking in novels, that is the mixture of styles and languages. Todorov uses the term to describe the bicultural situation of interaction that took place in America during the Spanish conquest, where the coexistence of two different cultural and language systems became possible. Todorov regarded the successful interaction of two cultures as a hybrid result of the contact:

„L’interaction constante des cultures aboutit à la formation de cultures hybrides, métissées, créolisées, et cela à tous les échelons: depuis les écrivains bilingues, en passant par les métropoles cosmopolites, et jusqu’aux États pluri-culturels. Pour ce qui concerne les entités collectives, plusieurs modèles également insatisfaisants viennent facilement à l’esprit. Passons sur l’assimilation pure et simple, qui ne tire aucun profit de la coexistence de deux traditions culturelles.“ (1986 :20)

7

Todorov does not look to preserving original cultures, but on developing complex systems. And it is this meaning of hybridity that is used by García Canclini for characterizing urban societies. Hybridity means the mixture and interaction between mass culture, cultura popular and the so-called ‘high culture’ while he stresses the dynamism of the process. He illustrates this process, for example, with reference to colorful ceramic figures of the Purhépecha. In Ocumicho, a small village in the province of Michoacán, potters created in the 1960s colorful figures, mostly Christian presentations in combination with devils. They became very popular, even outside Mexico. Though the customers were from the beginning (and still are) non-Indigenous, the ceramics are considered traditional objects of the Purhépecha. The figures became part of the traditional culture of the Purhépecha and today are even part of Mexican national culture (García Canclini 1990: 205). The ceramics illustrate the creativity of hybridization – far apart from the original meaning of hybridity. As Raymondo Mier says, „the idea of hybrid cultures [...] permits the imagination of social morphologies, fields of singularized regularity, designations of catastrophe, but a catastrophe that is not a limiting border, a mere point of singularity, the space of a fracture.“ (in: García Canclin 1995: 77). While his critiques question the use of hybridity because of the botanical meaning, García Canclini uses the term to illustrate cultural creativity. 2.3 Creolization Apart from Latin American cultural theories, Caribbean theorists developed their own cultural concept, known under the term creolization. While in the Spanish context criollo described someone born in the colonies, in the French context creole indicated a racial category for children of mixed racial descent. The different derivation of Creole still leads to confusion within the debate about creolization or créolité as a cultural term. While some scientists understand creolization as a linguistic term, others use it in the sense of the Spanish colonial period and again others as a synonym for mixture or hybridity. It often indicates a pejorative connotation with respect to a superior category – whether the European culture, a biological or a linguistic ‘purity’ (see D’Ans 1997). Nevertheless, some scholars use the term creolization to describe a positive process despite its violent origin because it demonstrates the fundamental experience of the New World. For example, Jean Bernabé, Patrick Chamoiseau and Raphaël Confiant begin their Éloge de la Créolité with the proud statement: „Ni Européens, ni Africains, ni Asiatiques, nous nous proclamons Créoles“ (1993:13). The three authors, who investigate créolité within the ‘Martiniquian School’ of créolité, see creole identity as the cement of Caribbean culture. With reference to Édouard Glissant, they demand to turn away from the Caribbean orientation towards France and to remember their own Creole culture, which they define as „l’agrégat interactionnel ou transactionnel, des éléments culturels caraïbes, européens, africains, asiatiques, et levantins, que le joug de l’Histoire a réunis sur le même sol“ (1993:26). Kathleen Balutansky and Marie-Agnès Sourieau criticize their attitude and stress the endless transformation process of creolization. It undermines every academic and political effort to determine the origin or authenticity of creolization that still can be seen in the definition of Bernabé, Chamoiseau and Confiant. In opposition to the Martiniquian School of créolité, Balutansky and Sourieau define creolization „as a syncretic process of transverse dynamics that endlessly reworks and transforms the cultural patterns of varied social and historical experiences and identities“ (1998:3). Some cultural theorists

8

go even further than Balutansky and Sourieau and transfer creolization to settings outside the Caribbean. For instance, Ulf Hannerz regards the concept of creolization as global processes. He considers Creole cultures – as Creole languages – „intrinsically of mixed origin, the confluence of two or more widely separate historical currents which interact in what is basically a centre/periphery relationship“ (Hannerz 1992:264). Creole cultures have grown over a long period of time, during which they have developed a degree of coherence. Creole cultures have an uninterrupted spectrum of forms of interaction that are visible and active together with several historical sources of the culture. But despite Hannerz, most scholars still regard creolization as a Caribbean process connected to slavery. Antonio Benítez Rojo argues that the cultura criolla was construed at the periphery of the plantation economy: „En esta sociedad de costumbres libres, bajo el interés común del contrabando y separada de los centros de poder colonial por la distancia y las cordilleras, surgieron los criollos propiamente dichos, también llamados significativamente gente de la tierra.“ (1989:18) His description shows that his definition of creolization is based on the original meaning of ‘people of Spanish descent born in the colonies’. Already living with various restrictions, they did not need to follow the strict orders of the motherland and could live much more freely than the peninsulares, their Spanish neighbours born in Spain. Benítez Rojo regards the juxtaposition of equal parts and their constantly renewed interweaving as a typical Caribbean practice, which is manifested in Cuban literature as well as in Cuban religion. He opposes the characterization of creolization as a process because a process means development, but creolization is „a discontinuous series of recurrences, of happenings, whose sole law is change“ (1998:55). Because he localises the cultura criolla outside of the plantation, a place of violent suppression, he breaks the Caribbean out of the ‘model of discourse and anti-discourse, of repression and opposition’ and argues at the same time against a synthetic, homogeneous cultural concept. Édouard Glissant, on the other hand, regards creolization from the plantation perspective, that is, from the perspective of suppression and uprooting. There is no discours antillais outside the plantation. Even Maroons, the runaway slaves, as representatives of an opposite culture stand in relation to the plantation, the place of the creation of the Creole culture. Glissant construes his concept of diversity with reference to the experience of the inhabitants of the Caribbean, mainly the ‘deported’ and ‘imported’ persons, that is, Arawaks, Caribs and African slaves. Glissant defines creolization as an experience of diversity as well as a process that was a long time unnoticed: „Creolization is not an uprooting, a loss of sight, a suspension of being. Transcience is not wandering. Diversity is not dilution“ (Glissant 1995:269). Glissant limits the process of creolization to the Caribbean, Brazil and parts of Middle America, where the plantation was a central element. While in other American regions, such as the United States, diverse ethnic groups lived side by side or fought for survival, the problem of the inhabitants of the plantations was „to give legitimacy to this new dimension of human nature they constitute, the dimension of exchange and mutual change, in a world in which apartheid and racism still rule and dominate“ (1995:270). Glissant argues within a temporal continuum. He still wants to improve the world, while Benítez Rojo does not want to create a new vision of the future, but offers another way of reading Creole cultures. Benítez Rojo localises his remarks in a place instead of a time. Despite the differing approaches, both concepts regard culture as ‘a-centric

9

structures’ without a firm order, but based on an interconnection of various orders, which lead to new, unpredictable phenomena. 3. Bricolage and mémoire collective in Afro-America Now that I have presented this short overview of some Latin American cultural theories, I will continue with the presentation of bricolage and its usage within the cultural debate. Bricolage became a metaphor for syncretic cultural forms. For instant, David Guss characterizes with the term bricolage Latin American festivals, which he defines as syncretic invention although the participants believe in its purity: “Like Lévi-Strauss’s famous ‘bricoleur’, these festivals, as a direct result of their syncretic composition, have enabled participants to recombine elements continually, forefronting some and ignoring others, depending on the particular message those in control of the festival wish to convey” (1994:145-146). Richard Werbner, on the other hand, differentiates between syncretism as a religious mixture and bricolage as cultural mixture. He defines bricolage as „the formation of fresh cultural forms from the ready-to-hand debris of old forms”, while syncretism is “the contentious and distinctively ritual and/or religious hybridization“ (1994: 215). Werbner, as many others, reduces the schema of Lévi-Strauss to only one aspect, the mixture, and disregards his intention to illustrate with the term bricolage an special form of thinking. Roger Bastide takes another turn. He argues that even before Lévi-Strauss Marcel Mauss has described the process of bricolage, though „sans lui donner encore de nom“. And he continues:

« Analysant, en effet, les rituels de l’imitation religieuse tels qu’ils ont été transportés et tels qu’ils continuent au Brésil, M. Mauss y retrouve, mais réarrangés d’une manière différente, toute une série de rites antérieurs, plus ou moins tombés dans l’abandon, résidus de structures déstructurées, comme les rites d’initiation tribale (ou politique), les rites d’adoption familiale, les rites d’intronisation des rois, etc., lesquels dégagés des anciens systèmes pour être liés dans un nouvel ensemble, changent naturellement de signification, pour prendre celle que lui imposent leurs nouvelles connexions dans la «confrérie religieuse» qui naît de cette restructuration d’anciens ensembles cérémoniels déstructurés. » (1970 :97).

Bastide transplants the term bricolage into the field of Afro-American studies2 where the term helps to understand the transplantation, the opposition and the adaptation of Africans in America. Bastide understands bricolage as a process that construes out of a disparate ensemble a new meaning without changing the significance of the elements. This process can be found in the mémoire collective of Afro-Americans. The Afro-American societies sought for new images to fill the gaps produced by the slavery, but not through adaptation of elements, but through a specific way of organization. And at this point bricolage begins, but not only as invention of logique de l’imaginaire:

„[Le bricolage] est réparation d’un objet existant, comme d’une chaise dont il manque un barreau. Et par conséquent la signification est donné par l’objet existant, par la chaise, même si on remplace le barreau par quelque

2 The term ‘Afro-America’ includes all cultures on the American continent and the Caribbean with African elements while African America indicates only the cultures in the U.S.A.

10

chose de très différent, par une chaîne en fer par exemple qui attache les deux pieds du siège et les empêche de s’écarter. » (1970 :100)

Bastide was inspired by Maurice Halbwachs who in his Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (1925) illustrates that individual memories do not last long, while the memory of a social group can preserve memories of a former life. Bastide combines the concept of collective memory with the process of bricolage with reference to different Afro-American groups in North and Latin America. Bastide stresses with his confrontation of bricolage with mémoire collective the importance of local influences, because the process is not mechanical but depends on situation, time and environment and therefore constantly renews itself. Bricolage arises in a permanent movement; it ends and begins again, without losing its verve. The process of bricolage includes a view of society, which can manipulate the group and has an important influence on the composition of the handicraft. In the field of cultural concepts, bricolage signifies that the composition of a culture depends on the material and the tools that are present. But, in extension of Lévi-Strauss, the composition depends also on the operating subject, whether it is group of human beings or an individual. Society influences the process too, through the situation that produces the changes and through the intention of the changes. In the end, bricolage can be understood only in relationship to the bricoleur, the operating subject. The innovative process is combined inseparably with the innovative actor as e.g. Terence Turner (1995:151) wrote: „It is crucial that the structures in question be recognized as operational structures, that is, as functional procedures for constructing the objects or qualities predicated in the tropic relation“. And he continues: “The meaning is in the doing, in the operations, in the construction of the form, in the standing up and sitting down, in the flying and the dancing, rather than the flight, the dance, the araras, or the lap, as positive entities or synchronic relations.” Bricolage cannot be compared with a mosaic of colorful stones because it includes a never-ending process. As the do-it-yourselfer is never satisfied with the result and always tries to alter something, the composition of a culture always changes. Every situation, every new influence alters the composition as one can see in reference to Caribbean culture in New York City. 4. Caribbean culture in New York City Before explaining the basis of a cultural concept based on bricolage, I will start with my investigation among Caribbean migrants in New York City. I worked with different religious communities of Caribbean migrants in New York City (Haitian vodou, Cuban and Puerto Rican santería and shango from Trinidad and Tobago), in Brooklyn in particular, where most Caribbean migrants live. Religions in the contexts of migration are mostly interpreted as strategies of survival, which help even migrants of the second generation to develop a connection to the home country, a connection to their origin. This is also true in reference to the Caribbean communities – but only in part. As the religions illustrate, they have already moved to another level and integrated more than their original believers from the Caribbean. They constructed a bridge to the Caribbean through drumming and singing and created a new home with the smell and the images of the old. This also attracted people of other origins, from other Caribbean islands, from African and European and even from Asian backgrounds. And those outsider influence the religions again. Santeria was probably the first Afro-Caribbean religion practiced in New York. Created in Cuba during slavery as a mixture of different African traditions, Catholic elements and

11

even some indigenous beliefs, Santeria became a popular religion for Cubans of African decent in the 19th century (see Brandon 1993). Unfortunately there exists little information about the beginnings of Santeria in New York. At first, only Cuban immigrants practiced Santeria in private ceremonies. Even the altars, which are central for the private practice of Santeria, were (and often still are) hidden in closets because the believers were afraid of the prejudices of Non-Caribbean persons toward Afro-Caribbean religions. Therefore one can only assume that Santeria probably arrived in New York with the first Cuban immigrants in the 19th century. The arrival of the first Cuban Santeria priests in New York was documented only in the 1940s (Gregory 1986:55). Especially the arrival of the babalawo (=priest of Ifá-cult) Francisco (Pancho) Mora 1946 in New York was an important turning point in the history of Santeria in New York because it marks the beginning of communal ceremonial practices in New York (Friedman 1982:54-55). In spite of his unsuccessful attempts to unite all santeros (=people initiated in Santería) in New York in one federation, Mora has managed to include more and more believers into the Santeria (Vega 1995). Another important step for the development of Santeria communities in New York was the arrival of Cuban musicians in New York, which was connected to the growing interest of African Americans in Caribbean religions. Fascinated by Caribbean rhythms, African Americans started to support the spread of the religions in New York. In the 1950s, the famous Katherine Dunham Dance Company hired the Cuban drummer Julito Collazo for the ballet performances. After the tour, Collazo decided to stay in New York. Being an omo Añya3, Collazo was the first musician in New York who was able to perform and teach the ceremonial rhythm. At this time the center of Santeria was in the Upper West Side of Manhattan where Cuban immigrants lived together with Puerto Rican migrants and where in 1961 the first New Yorker initiation was performed (Vega 1995:203). African Americans have taken an even greater interest in Vodou, the Haitian religion, especially during the Harlem Renaissance. Zora Neale Hurston, an African American anthropologist and writer, became so fascinated by Vodou during her stay in the Caribbean, that she was accused of entering too fully into the cultural experiences of her informants (Mikell 1999:64). Katherine Dunham, an African American anthropologist and dancer, even decided during her research in Haiti to become initiated in Vodou. Her writings about her experiences with Vodou, but even more her choreography, have touched the audience in many ways. Her work has initiated staged performances of Haitian dances and changed the reception of Vodou in the U.S. (Aschenbrenner 1999). Another African American, Maya Deren, filmmaker and author, also became so fascinated by Vodou that she decided to “go native” during her effort to learn more about Vodou in Haiti. In the end she became so involved in Vodou that she declined to finish her visual documentary. Only after her early death did her husband cut her shooting and finished Devine Horsemen, one of the most fascinating documentaries about Vodou possessions (Deren 1953). But despite the interest of African Americans in Vodou, the practice of the religion stayed very low until the number of immigrants from Haiti began to rise significantly in the 1980s. At this time New York has already began to change dramatically under the influence of Caribbean immigrants. After World War II the first significant group from the Caribbean

3 Omo Añya is a Santero initiated in the cult of the Orisha Añya, the god of the drums

12

area to arrive in New York were the Puerto Ricans, who have had U.S. citizenship since 1917. Although most of the Cubans who fled their island after the Castro revolution have settled in Florida, the number of Cubans in New York has risen, too, especially during the second and third wave of Cuban immigration to the U.S. Because of increasing numbers of Cuban and Puerto Rican santeros in New York, the presence of Santeria became more and more visible in the 1960s and 1970s. In this time the practice of Santeria was quite free of restrictions as Steven Harry Cornelius describes it (1989:53). Because of the lack of educated musicians and priests, the practitioners had to experiment based on the few descriptions of Santeria liturgy available in New York. The most influential books were the writings of the Cuban scholar Fernando Ortiz (see e.g. Ortiz 1973/1906). This development augmented the attraction of Santeria to Non-Caribbean persons, especially for African Americans, who in 1960 even founded a Yoruba-Temple in Harlem. Based on Santeria beliefs, African Americans under the leadership of Walter Eugene King, the first African American initiated in Santeria in Matanza, began to develop their own re-africanized version of the Cuban Santeria and created their own “Yoruba religion”. Santeria became the foundation of a common identity of African Americans and Caribbean immigrants (Gregory 1987:322). After King (who took the name Nana Oseijeman Adefunmi) left Harlem in 1970 in order to found Oyotunji, an African village in Sheldon, South Carolina, many of his followers moved to Cuban temples. After a while these temples became black houses, as Mary Curry writes (Curry1991:8). In the middle of the 1980s the situation changed again dramatically because of the arrival of a high number of Cuban santeros. In contrast to the political exiles who arrived in the U.S. after the Castro revolution, most of the marielitos, mainly social fugitives, already practiced Santeria in Cuba. Therefore they were disappointed by the development of Santeria liturgy in New York and began to emphasize Cuban Santeria practices. They focus on the correct religious hierarchy, the gender division and the correct paraphernalia (Cornelius 1989:66). Even while non-Cubans often describe Cuban santeros in secret as muy celoso, very compulsory, no one would challenge the dominant position of Cubans within the Santeria communities in New York. Today most of the “houses of Ocha” in New York are multiethnic and maintain transnational relations of ritual kinship with houses all over the world, from Cuba and Puerto Rico, to South America and even Europe. Gregory describes the New Yorker Santeria houses as “a mosaic of people from Latin America, North America, the English and French-speaking Caribbean and, in some cases, West Africa” (Gregory 1999:100). Because of the private practice of Santeria, it is still impossible to determine the exact number of persons practicing Santeria, even when some assume that nearly one million Santeros live in the Tri-State-area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. And all houses can trace their ritual descent back to Cuba. The expansion of Vodou was similar to Santeria, only some decades later. At first, some Haitian immigrants in New York practiced Vodou secretly. Because of the negative image of Vodou, even Haitians, especially upper class Haitians, reject the practice of Vodou as “black magic”. But in the diaspora Vodou became a link between the «10th department» (= people living outside Haiti, the diaspora) and home, that is, Haiti. While especially the middle and upper class refugees who fled during the dictatorship of the Duvaliers reject Vodou as superstition, the second-generation immigrants have developed a growing interest in Vodou. Because of increasing economic problems in Haiti, the number of Haitians living in New York has grown dramatically since 1972

13

(Laguerre 1996/1984). Many of them arrived in the U.S. illegally, often as “boat-refugees”. Probably in this time, the first Vodou temple was founded in New York. Since the 1980s more and more Vodou priests arrived from Haiti to found Vodou temples in the boroughs of New York, especially in Brooklyn and the Bronx where most of the Haitian immigrants live. They mainly practise the Vodou of Port-au-Prince, the urban form of Vodou (see e.g. Brown 1991, 1995). But each priest can create his or her own system of beliefs and practices as long as the community of the temple exists. The individuality of Vodou often leads to misunderstandings and even supports stereotypes, but it is also an important element of this syncretic Caribbean religion. It is impossible to count the number of people practicing Vodou in New York because of the ongoing rejection of Vodou and the illegal status of some of the practitioners, as Michel Laguerre states (Laguerre 1996/1984:29). Beside the vodoussaints (=people initiated in Vodou), other people, Haitians as well as Non-Haitians, seek help from Vodou priests and consult them in times of crisis, whether it is a physical, mental or social problem. Often they decide afterwards to continue to go the ceremonies and sometimes they even initiate in Vodou. Since the arrival of Vodou in New York, it has become more and more popular for outsiders, for people searching for help as well as for people attracted by the performance. Beside Santeria and Vodou, the two most popular Caribbean religions in New York today, one can find other Caribbean religious communities. Especially since the 1990s the variety of Caribbean beliefs is growing dramatically. Each new immigrant group introduces a new belief system and new practices to New York. Nowadays, one can find Jamaican Rasta, Dominican Vodou or Gaga, Brazilian Candomble, Trinidadian Shango and even Hindu beliefs from Trinidad being practiced in New York. All religious groups have some common characteristics: 1. All groups are assembled around a charismatic leader who is sometimes

replaceable. 2. All groups have an individualistic orientation. The members even participate regularly

when they do not live in the neighborhood of the temple because they chose the temple based on personal factors, e.g. because they agree with the leader and his orientation.

3. All groups have contacts to other groups, much more than in the Caribbean, esp. when they fight for political aims. Even when the members of groups sometimes do not agree with the interchange between different groups, all leaders have some connections to other groups.

4. The central aspect of the religious practice is the individual religious experience, in particular the manifestation of religious entities in the body of the believers. Even when some priests insist on the superiority of oracles, the personal experiences of the Numinos are more important for the believers.

5. The integration of emotion in the religious practice is therefore very important for every group. Particularly in foreign and hostile surroundings the emotions of the migrants are often suppressed. They fell reluctant to express anger or joy openly. Especially the new and the illegal migrants have difficulties finding surroundings where they can react freely. The festivals of the religious groups offer such opportunities.

6. During the reunions of the groups nobody is left alone with his or her emotions. Whether pain or joy, all emotion is shared with someone who will take care of the person occupied by his or her emotion. Every group has a network of members who

14

react immediately when somebody is overwhelmed by emotion and helps him or her to get free of the situation or protects the person during this phase.

7. Every group has a hierarchy of positions, which can help members to develop strength. This empowerment of one’s own abilities is not limited to religious abilities, but also includes self-confidence and self-esteem. The group supports the members to develop their abilities and to acquire a higher position within the community.

8. A central point is the aesthetic aspect. Every community has aesthetic modes of expression, e.g. beautiful decorated altars or installed thrones for the gods. The decoration of the temple is also a joint occupation of all members. Another aesthetic element is the music, which is important in all ceremonies (mostly drums and singing, but sometimes even the piano). Combined with the music is the movement, the dance, which is also part of the aesthetic attraction of the groups. Every god has its own movement from which he or she can be recognized easily during manifestation in the body of a believer. Music and dance are one of the most important attractions of the Caribbean religions for outsiders, that is: for people not from the Caribbean who often take music or dance classes before they began to learn about the religions themselves. But a real art product is only created in the combination of the different styles. When the music begins, the movement and the decoration of the room with the altar together have an effect; all senses of the participants are touched. This aesthetic level of the religions is one of the main characteristics of all Caribbean religions.

9. Beside these religious elements, there are also some common structural elements of the religious groups. For instance, every group reacts in a specific way to the presence of African Americans. Most groups develop an kind of »Africanization« and stress the African elements much more than in the Caribbean. Some, such as the Yoruba-Orisha Baptist Church, develop African festivals. The santería in particular discuss their African heritage. The African American believers of santería try to revitalize their connection to Africa on the basis of the religion. This is not an integration of new elements, but a shift of emphasis.

10. Another common strategy is the integration of new elements such as the Buddha in the Yoruba-Orisha Baptist Church. Though he is still not present in the pantheon of the believers, he symbolizes the polytheistic framework of the church and the strategy of the leader to make his church cosmopolitan: all are welcome, all believers as well as all religious entities. Often, the members of a group are more reserved than the leaders towards foreign influences as well as towards foreign visitors. After initiation the former foreigner are supporting the leaders in attracting new members. As converts they are often much better informed about the religions than the older members. Only the African Americans are often more than reserved towards new members that do not have a visible African heritage.

11. Even the function of the religious communities is common. The communities offer help in every situation, during medical or physical problems as well as during social, familial or mental problems. One important aspect is to affirm troubled persons that they are not guilty for the disturbance. Only after the imagined guild is taken from the troubled person, he or she is able to participate during healing, which also is an important aspect of curing.

12. Because of the increasing number of members, most groups have to institutionalize. While some still do not want to become a formal church, the pressure is getting

15

stronger, in particular to get registered as e.g. the Yoruba-Orisha Baptist Church has done already.

These twelve common elements lead to the characterization of religious bricolage, which are always open and dynamic mixtures of diverse elements with creative actors as members who make their own decisions and form their own systems. It is therefore a combination of reaction and action, in particular in reference to the influences of society. And always the local context and the specific situation are important. Although all religions were created under similar historical circumstances (slavery, colonization, suppression of the religion) they have developed different systems that incorporated the influences in different ways. But, the main attraction is the address of all senses, in particular the combination of music, movement and ornament, and sometimes even smell. Together they create a religious artifact, which is central for the believers confronted by surroundings they regard as hostile, cold and senseless. The festivals and ceremonies create, instead, a hot, tropical atmosphere that not only symbolizes a bridge to the motherland but a contrast to reality. 5. Bricolage as polyphonic culture theory The Cuban novelist Alejo Carpentier presents in his novella Concierto Barroco an example of polyphonic culture, although his novella is not written polyphonically. Carpentier describes a meeting of Antonio Vivaldi, Georg Friedrich Händel and Domenico Scarletti with a Mexican traveler and his Cuban servant during carnival in Rome. The central part is a fulminate concierto grosso: led by Filomeno, the Cuban servant, all participants create together a fantastic symphony that breaks all rules and produces a high state of euphoria. In his novel Carpentier abolishes all barriers and leads the reader in a musical journey through different countries and times. Historic time or linear progress is not important for the author. Years become seconds, the African slave becomes a Cuban servant and in the end an American Jazz musician. The journey through time presents an impressive interpretation of Latin American culture. Carpentier stresses especially the sensuousness and the playful ease that can break barriers. Though his medium, the novella, does not allow long explanations, he demonstrates with the breaks and jumps a concept in opposition to linear European concepts. Rigidity vanishes in the presence of such a musical hurly-burly of protagonists – as all structures that Lévi-Strauss has construed formally will vanish in the euphoria of pensée sauvage. Though Carpentier does not let his protagonists speak in their own voice, he does construe an impressive image of a polyphonic culture in his novella. The term polyphonic is based on Mikhail Bakhtin and his literature studies (see 1968, 1973). Bakhtin was interested in transgression, the crossing of barriers. He developed a concept of a polyphonic culture of laughter, which was common during the renaissance, but exists today only in literary works. The European renaissance was for Bakhtin a period of two languages, a time when the popular languages began to gain acceptance in opposition to Latin, the formerly dominant language. The existence of a frontier does not only implicate the co-existence of two languages, but indicates also the growing feeling of the language’s frontier. Bakhtin characterizes the renaissance as actively multi-lingual, with the ability to regard the own language from the perspective of the other language. The crossing of frontiers, transgression, leads Bakhtin to his interest in the carnivalization of popular culture and the culture of laughter. In the works of Dostoevsky Bakhtin discovered carnivalistic elements. Everything is exaggerated to the extreme; Dostoevsky describes everything in the moment of a not-completed transition.

16

This form of carnivalization is combined with other elements of polyphonic novels as for instance the position of the central figure. Bakhtin illustrated that Dostoevsky describes the world in his novels from the perspective of the hero, and not the hero within his world. The distance between author and hero breaks the monological unity of the artificial world, as Bakhtin writes in his critique of the monologue. The presentation of »true life« is possible only with free dialogue, as Dostoevsky demonstrates in his novels. Though Dostoevsky’s protagonists speak in the language of the author, Bakhtin defends Dostoevsky’s writing style. Dostoevsky creates differences not through different languages, but through relationships, perspectives and a specific characterization of the figures. Bakhtin criticizes in all of his studies the »monologism of thoughts« while he prefers dialogue and laughter. He combines his critique of monologue with his critique of the hostility against laughter in the European culture. Only Dostoevsky used a different position by including a foreign perspective in his novels. Recently, Sol Montoya has transferred Bakhtin’s concept of carnivalization on her study of Colombian carnival and introduces the term polyvalence. Based on Bakhtin, Montoya defines polyvalence as the demonstration of different possibilities to understand and handle a situation, an event or a person. Instead of solutions, polyvalence present only the possibilities of solutions. Back to the discussion of cultural theories. From the beginning, the central point in the debate was the dealing with the mixture of culture. The majority of the concepts emphasize the – mostly static imagined – result instead of locking on the creation process. The perspective of the observer can distinguish the different concepts. Instead of its pluralistic start mestizaje implies cultural homogeneity because it is directed on the assimilation of the foreign. This process neglects the specialty of the foreign. The theory of hybridization – construed as a counter strategy – also emphasizes the incorporation of cultural elements in a dominant system that they will enrich. Though hybridization implies a permanent process of new orientation, it still includes a centralistic perspective. But as one can see with reference to the religions, cultures need a framework to arrange new elements, but no centralistic structures. Creolization, on the other hand, locates the process of mixture on a specific place, the plantation, the place of slavery, or at the border of the plantation, the mines. The theories stress different aspects and present a variety of ideas, some contradictory, others supplementary. The overview of different theories in part 2 has illustrated that the dream of a homogenous future came to an end, though it still continues subliminally in some concepts. Also, most Latin American theories oppose bi-polar models, the confrontation of modern/tradition, urban/rural that is included in Lévi-Strauss’ system. Consequently the idea of an original purity of two opposite categories became out-dated as basis of the mixture. Now, the theories look on mixture instead of the origin though some seem to forget the perspective of the operative subject. More and more the theories emphasize the location of the mixture, and therefore begin to detect ethnographic reality. Despite the differences, the models have a monological perspective in common that create the impression that the members of a group speak with one voice. The theories often neglect that a number of individuals construe a culture speaking with different voices. Therefore the following list of aspects that will describe the central aspects of cultural systems, are only the cornerstones of my model. The list will never be complete, and never demand absolute acceptance. 1) The foundation of the polyphonic cultural theory is the concept of bricolage. Bricolage

marks a culture that is composed of elements of different cultural origin. But these original cultures will not be considered as authentically homogenous.

17

2) Theses elements, which can alter their meaning, are combined in an a-central structure. Important elements can become decorative ones, or even vanish in another moment. There are only few fixed elements surrounded by constantly diverse combined elements.

3) The composition of the elements changes depending on the situation, location, time and the creators of the culture because a culture of a group differs for each member. Each person focuses on different elements and in an individual way.

4) Therefore it is possible to include foreign elements whenever a member of a group comes in contact to foreign influences and considers them as important. Also, it is possible to exclude old elements whenever they are losing importance for the majority of the members. Bricolage does not imply the mixture of two or three cultures but the rearrangement of elements of diverse origin.

5) The bricoleurs – here: synonym for a group of creative subjects, the creator of a culture –always work independently. Though the society or part of it can influence the process, the exchange of elements depends on the will of the group itself. Therefore it is possible that the composition changes in opposition to the dominant society, not because of the pressure, but in spite of it.

6) The surroundings influence the bricoleurs. They alter their culture when they move into new surroundings. Each culture has a close relationship to its ethnographic location. Universal models therefore always reduce a culture and have to be limited.

7) The bricoleurs become aware of innovations as soon as they become visible for them. The location of new cultures is therefore often at the frontiers between different groups because it is the best place for exchange.

8) The composition of a culture illustrates the perspective of the bricoleur on the world and on him/herself. Elements that one member stresses in opposition to other members, point toward his/her perspective and are important for the analysis of the culture, not only of individual decorations.

9) The individuality leads to the existence of different statements for the same culture. Instead of an abstract, homogenous creator of a culture, each situation allows different (and equivalent) solutions. This polyphony prevents the creation of a homogenous entity.

10) In the center of the cultural model are the bricoleurs. Their position has to be reflected in relationship to their position to other bricoleurs. This produces a distance between observer and creators of a culture because the observer is always at the border of a culture, but also in dialogue with the creators.

11) The sensual perception of the cultural elements is important during the dialogue between observer and creators because it leads to the direct exchange of elements. Both the acceptance and the rejection of sensual attractions enable the interaction that in turn creates a new orientation of the culture.

The Caribbean culture – or: the Caribbean sub-culture in New York City – illustrates these characteristics. It represents an excellent example for bricolage. The Caribbean culture integrates elements of diverse origins that are combined only in the new surroundings of New York City. But the Caribbean culture in New York City is not a more or less homogenous mixture of elements. The members of the group, which include beside the migrants and their next generation also persons at the border such as African Americans with a strong Caribbean self-identification, interpret their culture quite diversely and individually. Each member marks different fixed aspects of their culture as one can see regarding the importance of language. Kreyòl, the Haitian Creole language,

18

is, for instance, for many a cornerstone of their identity; Spanish, on the other hand, is loosing in importance in favor of Spanglish, a Spanish-English mixture. But Kreyól is losing importance, too, esp. in the next generations: more and more Caribbean writers living in New York prefer to publish in English instead of in their Creole mother language. On the other hand, the poplar Caribbean religions become new cornerstones of the Caribbean culture in New York City. At the moment Vodou is gaining importance for the Caribbeans in New York as before Santería and the Puerto Rican Spiritism. A central characteristic of the Caribbean culture is the sensual element. The incorporation of deities is a common element of all Caribbean religions and accepted as specific musical styles and movements. These elements are also important for the interaction with outsiders because outsiders are often attracted to the Caribbean culture because of the music and movement. But the interaction with outsiders also redefines the Caribbean culture. While some groups position themselves in opposition to outsiders, others integrate along with foreign persons new elements into their cultural repertoire, new movements or new music, new deities, spirits or new prayers. The decision about acceptance or rejection is made by the group itself; even when this means that the group divides into two parts because some members are against the new elements. While the sensual aspect is common too in the African-American culture, there is a main difference between the group of African Americans and the Caribbean group: the ideological position of Africa. While Africa is important to both groups, the second group always put Africa in relation to the Caribbean as the real origin of bricolage. The culturally diverse Caribbean islands are the central aspect of the Caribbean culture in New York. African Americans, who identify themselves with the Caribbean culture, have to construe a Caribbean origin, which they often find through a religious lineage. Often African Americans try to construe descent from African kings and Egyptian emperors, though this is uncommon in the Caribbean. Another important aspect of the Caribbean culture in New York is the interaction with society. Influenced by society, some religious groups even found churches and take steps to get registered. This procedure strengthens the positions of the leader, but sometimes the members do not agree. Then, they can leave the church and found a new group. Both routes are important for the understanding of the Caribbean culture in New York. The representatives of the Caribbean culture in New York City demonstrate a great flexibility in handling society or the dominant part of society. If they act under pressure, than they often succeed to benefit from the pressure. An example is the way Cuban santeros fought against the ban on animal sacrifice. Their walk to the Supreme Court, which lifted the ban finally, strengthen the position of the Caribbean religions in the U.S.A. 6. Conclusion The Caribbean culture as it is presented in New York demonstrates the dynamism of polyphonic culture that is difficult to describe. Cultures cannot be regarded as homogenous entities; they are full of breaks, contradictions and dynamism, as Latin American theorists demonstrate. My observations among Caribbean communities have led to the construction of a cultural concept that illustrate that a culture is in an ongoing state of change and includes different expressions, depending on situation, time and

19

creator. Maintaining this cultural dynamism, this paper does not describe a culture in the classical sense; rather, it describes central aspects of its composition. The term bricolage emphasizes the creation process as well as the short period of existence. While the origin of the culture is the Caribbean, the composition changes continuously in the new surroundings that on the other hand are influenced by the Caribbean culture. The urban culture in New York can also be characterized by bricolage, which can include – or reject – elements through integration and interaction with other systems. This process can never be finished or even described – only its composition in a moment. Literature D'ANS, André-Marcel 1997 Créoles sans langue créole: les «criollos» d’Hispano-Amérique. In:

HAZAËL-MASSIEUX/DE ROBILLARD (ed.) 1997: pp. 29-50. ASCHENBRENNER, Joyce 1999 Katherine Dunham: Anthropologist, artist, humanist. In:

Harrison/Harrison (eds.) 1999: pp. 137-153 BAKHTIN, Mikhail 1968 Rabelais and his world. Cambridge/London: . 1973 Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ann Arbor. 1979 Die Ästhetik des Wortes. (edition suhrkamp) Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. BALUTANSKY, Kathleen and Marie-Agnés SOURIEAU (eds.) 1998 Caribbean creolization: reflections on the cultural dynamics of language,

literature, and identity. Gainesville, Flo/Barbados: Univ. Press of Florida/The Press Univ. of the West Indies.

BASTIDE, Roger 1970 Mémoire collective et sociologie du bricolage. In: L' Année Sociologique

(Paris), 3. Série, Vol. 21: pp. 65-108. BENÍTEZ ROJO, Antonio 1989 La isla que se repite: El Caribe y la perspectiva podmoderna. Hanover,

NH: Ed. del Norte. 1998 Three words towad creolization. In: BALUTANSKY/ SOURIEAU (eds.) 1998:

pp. 53-61. BERNABÉ, Jean / Patrick CHAMOISEAU / Raphaël CONFIANT 1993 [1989] Éloge de la créolité: in praise of creoleness. [Paris]: Gallimard. BHABHA, Homi K. 1985 Signe taken for woders: questions of ambivalence and authority under a

tree outside Delhi, May 1871. In: Critical Inquiry (Chicago), 12 (1): pp. 144-165.

BRANDON, George E. 1983 The dead sell memories: an anthropological study of Santería in New

York City [Ph. D. thesis, University of New Brunswick, NJ]. 1993 Santería from Africa to the New World: the dead sell memories. (Blacks

in the Diaspora) Bloomington/ Inianapolis: Indiana Univ. Press. BROWN, Karen McCarthy 1991 Mama Lola: a Vodou Priestress in Brooklyn. (Comparative Studies in

Religion and Society; 4) Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press.

20

1995 The power to heal in Haitian Vodou. In: HACKETT (ed.) 1995: pp. 479-494.

BUENO, Raúl 1996 Sobre la heterogeneidad literaria y cultural de América Latina. In:

MAZZOTTI / ZEVALLO AGUILAR (ed.) 1996: pp. 21-36. CARPENTIER, Alejo 1974 Concierto barroco. Novela. Mexico: Siglo XXI Ed. CORNELIUS, Steven Harry 1989 The convergence of power: an investigation into the music liturgy of

Santería in New York City [Ph.D., Univ. of California, Los Angeles, 1989] [Los Angeles].

COSENTINO, Donald (ed.) 1995 Sacret arts of Haitian Vodou. Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler Museum of

Cultural History. CURRY, Mary 1991 Making the Gods in New York. The Yoruba Religion in the Black

Community [Ph.D. thesis, City University of New York] [New York]. 1995 Making the Gods in New York: The Yoruba religion in the African

American community. New York/London: Garland. DEREN, Maya 1953 Divine Horsemen: The living gods of Haiti. London: Thames & Hudson. DÍAZ-STEVENS, Ana María und Antonio M. STEVENS-ARROYO 1998 Recognizing the Latino resurgence in U.S. religion: The Emmaus

paradigma. (Explorations Contemporary Perspectives on Religion) Boulder: Westview Press.

FERNANDEZ, James W. (ed.) 1995 [1991] Beyond metapher: the theory of tropes in anthropology. Stanford,

Cal.: Stanford Univ. Press. FRIEDMAN, Robert A. 1982 Making an abstract world concret: knowledge, competence, and

structural dimensions of perfermance among Bata drummers in Santería [Ph. D. thesis, Indiana University].

GARCÍA CANCLINI, Néstor 1990 Culturas híbridas: estrategias para entrar y salir de la modernidad. (Los

Noventa) Mexico: Ed. Grijalbo. GARCÍA CANCLINI, Néstor 1995 The hybrid: a conversation with Margarita Zires, Raymundo Mier, and

Mabel Piccini. In: BEVERLY/OVIEDO/ARONNA (eds.) 1995: 77-92. GLISSANT, Édouard 1995 Creolization in the making of the Americas. In: HYATT/ NETTLEFORD

(eds.) 1995: pp. 268-275. GONZÁLEZ CASANOVA, Pablo (ed.) 1983 No intervención autodeterminación y democracia en América Latina.

Mexico: Siglo 21 Editores. GREGORY, Steven 1986 Santería in Ne York City: a study in cultural resistance [Ph.D. thesis,

New School for Social research, 1986] [New York].

21

1987 Afro-Caribbean religions in New York City: the case of Santería. In: SUTTON (ed.) 1987: pp. 307-324.

GUSS, David M. 1994 Syncretic inventions: 'Indianness' and the Day of the Monkey. In:

STEWART / SHAW (eds.) 1994: pp. 145-160. HACKETT, David G. (ed.) 1995 Religion and American culture: a reader. New York/ London: Routledge. HALBWACHS, Maurice 1992 On collective Memory. [Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire] Chicago:

Univ. of Chicago Press. HANNERZ, Ulf 1992 Cultural complexity: studies in the social organization of meaning. New

York: Columbia Univ. Press. 1998 Transnational connections: culture, people, places. London / New York:

Routledge.

Harrison, Ira E. and Faye V. Harrison (Eds.) 1999 African-American pioneers in anthroplogy. Urbana, Chicago: Univ. of

Illinois Press HAZAËL-MASSIEUX, Maria-Christine and Didier DE ROBILLARD (eds.) 1997 Contacts de langues, contacts de cultures, créolisation: mélanges

offerts à Robert Chaudenson à l'occasion de son soixantième anniversaire. Paris / Montréal: L'Harmattan.

HERLINGHAUS, Hermann and Monika WALTER (eds.) 1994 Posmodernidad en la periferia: enfoques latinoamericanos de la nueva

teoríe cultural. Berlin: Langer. HYATT, Vera Lawrence and Rex NETTLEFORD (eds.) 1995 Race, discourse, and the origin of the Americas: a new world view.

Washington, D.C./London: Smithsonian Institution Press. KLOR DE ALVA, J. Jorge 1992 The postcolonization of the (Latino) American experience: a

recondideration of 'colonialism', 'postcolonialism', and 'mestizaje'. In: PRAKASH (ed.) 1995: pp. 241-275.

LAGUERRE, Michel S. 1996 [1984] American Odyssey: Haitians in New York City. (Anthropology of

Contemporary Issues) Ithaca/London: Cornell Univ. Press. LÉVI-STRAUSS, Claude 1962 La pensée sauvage. Paris: Librairie Plon. 1985 La Potière Jalouse. Paris. LIENHARD, Martín 1996 De mestizajes, heterogeneidades, hibridismos y otras quimeras. In:

MAZZOTTI / ZEVALLOS AGUILAR (eds.) 1996: pp. 57-80. MASON, Peter 1990 Deconstructing America: Representations of the Other. London/New

York: Routledge. MAZZOTTI, José Antonio and U. Juan ZEVALLO AGUILAR (eds.) 1996 Asedios a la heterogenidad cultural: Libro de homenaje a Antonio

Cornejo Polar. Philadelphia: Asociación Internacional de Peruanistas.

22

MIKELL, Gwendolyn 1999 Feminism and black culture in the ethnography of Zora Neale Hurston.

In: Harrison / Harrison (eds.) 1999: pp. 51-69. MÖRNER, Magnus 1967 Race mixture in the history of Latin America. Boston: Little, Brown and

Comp. MONSIVÁIS, Carlos 1983 Penetración cultural y nacionalismo (el caso mexicano). In: GONZÁLEZ

CASANOVA (ed.) 1983: pp. 75-89. ORTIZ, Fernando 1973 [1906] Los negros brujos (apuntes para un estudio de etnología

criminal; con una carta prólogo de Lombroso). (Ebano y Canela, 2) Miami, Fla.: Ediciones Universal.

PAZ, Octavio 1993 [1967] Claude Lévi-Strauss o el nuevo festín de Esopo. (Biblioteca de

Bolsillo) Barcelona: Ed. Seix Barral. PRAKASH, Gyan (Hrsg.) 1995 After colonialism: imperial hostory and postcolonial displacements.

(Princeton Studies in Culture / Power / History) Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

RICHARD, Nelly 1994 Latinoamérica y la Posmodernidad. In: HERLINGHAUS/ WALTER (eds.)

1994: 210-222. STEWARD, Charles und Rosalind SHAW (Hrsg.) 1994 Syncretism/Anti-syncretism: the politics of religious synthesis.

(European Association of Social Anthropologists) London/New York: Routledge.

TODOROV, Tzvetan 1986 Le croisement des cultures. In: Communications (Paris), 43: 5-26. TURNER, Terence 1995 [1991] "We are parrots", "Twins are birds": play of tropes as operational

structure. In: FERNANDEZ (ed.) 1995: pp. 121-158. VEGA, Marta Moreno 1995 The Yoruba Orisha tradition comes to New York City. In: African

American Review (Terre Haute, IN), 29, Nr. 2: pp. 201-206. WERBNER, Richard 1994 Afterword. In: STEWART/SHAW (eds.) 1994: pp. 212-215. YOUNG, Robert J. C. 1995 Colonial desire: hybridity in theory, culture and race. London/New York:

Routledge.