austraLasia 924
'Not an iota of difference!' In this case
there is.
ROME: 27th October '04 -- We know that
East split from West over many factors, but doctrinally, at least, it may
be put down to 'an iota of difference' in the case of the Greek
homo(i)-ousios. Is there likely to be a future rupture over the
more Latin-sounding en/inculturation?
The comments that follow will leave
doctrinal considerations to those with the competence for them. Mine can
help to clarify the linguistic history, and be of some supporting role to the
former, I'm sure. The Rector Major, in a comment during his visit to East
Timor indicated that enculturation is distinct from
inculturation. He defined the former as socialisation
and described the latter in a contextual way for his listeners. No doubt,
with a doctorate lurking behind the word, he also has a precise definition for
that term too.
Let's begin with the 'Latin-sounding'
aspect of either term. Enculturation has a Latin core (the
culture bit), but Latin morphology, that is the way words are put
together in that language, does not allow an en- prefix, so we can
be immediately sure that this word did not begin its existence in that
language. In fact we know precisely when, by who and how this word came
into existence. It began as an English word and was coined by M.J.
Herskovitz, an anthropologist, in 1952 (Man and His Works: The Science of
Cultural Anthropology NY:Alfred A. Knoopf). You still find that
reference in Anthropology 101 courses in most universities. And he
intended by the term precisely what Fr Chávez defined it as: socialisation, or
something that goes on between generations in a culture, mum toilet-training the
kids.
Enculturation was not the first
'expansion' of culture in English. Already in the 19th century,
an American anthropologist (not the Polish Malinowski, as some have claimed) had
introduced acculturation to refer to the learning of a second culture,
so this time something that goes on between two culture, not just two
generations of a single culture. Me learning how to live as an Australian
in Italy, for example. The Académie française had already
'admitted' acculturation to French by 1911.
So what of inculturation?
Here is where the woolly thinking, linguistically speaking, begins. I read
an entire Bishop's Pastoral Letter, basing his thoughts on inculturation of
liturgy etc. on the 'fact' that the term began its voyage from Vatican II's 'Ad
Gentes'. This is incorrect. Neither in the Latin nor in the English
official translation does the term appear. I have also heard it said that
John Paul II coined the term. The linguistic evidence is against
this. We know when he first used it, though: Catechesi
Tradendae, 53. 1979. This was the first use of the term in an
official papal document, albeit an 'Apostolic Exhortation'. And his first
use of the term is telling: 'the term acculturation or inculturation may be a
neologism but it expresses very well one factor of the great mystery of the
Incarnation...'. He is writing in Latin, so he will use the 'in-'
form regardless. He is also unclear of the distinction between
acculturation and inculturation at this stage (an awareness
that sharpens by the time of Redemptoris Missio), and the evidence
surely is that the term inculturation already exists, and JPII feels it
may be applicable. In all likelihood, but I have no proof yet for this,
inculturation is an anthropological coining, sometime after 1952, to further
distinguish understandings from that developing science. We also get
exculturation, but that hasn't survived.
It is important to note here that the
Pope's first reference to the term is an analogical comment, not an etymological
one. That inculturation somehow expresses the incarnation is an
application of analogy. To say that the word combines incarnation
with enculturation to produce inculturation is etymologically
incorrect. This has not prevented the galloping development of
theological underpinnings of inculturation going back to the Pauline
understanding of the Incarnation - and why not? Just so long as we are
clear that (Catholic) theologians have now taken the high ground on the term,
and do not forget its more likely lowly birth in an individual's struggle to
make himself clear.
Mind you, the man-in-the-street might still
think it's a toss-up, en- or in-. The major dictionaries
are ambiguous or silent about inculturation. It's not a
man-in-the-street term, after all, nor is enculturation for that
matter. Cardinal Ratzinger became so exasperated by the brush-fires he had
to put out that at one point he suggested dropping inculturation for
inter-culturality. Now he might have good theological reasons for
that, but is unlikely to win the linguistic battle for hearts and
minds!
JBF
