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 acculturationand 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
