Seite - 112 - in Mobile Culture Studies - The Journal, Band 4/2018

112 Mobile Culture Studies. The Journal 4 2o18 Graciela Susana Boruszko | Transliteratures llegado hasta nosotros. Aún no existe su literatura de patera. En el sentido de la pal- abra del sacrificio, surgida del mismo sac- rificio como acto, como acción, en donde la palabra desempeñaría su papel. No como Palabra-Acción-voz de la víctima-. Hoy por hoy, estamos escribiendo en la orilla norte; sobre la patera, no desde la patera.” (Sol- er-Espiauba 2001:70) “Como una primera vía para organizar esta diversidad de situaciones, y repensar la impotencia que induce la lejanía o la abstrac- ción de los vínculos, propongo tomar en cuenta el esquema con que Craig Calhoun, y luego Ulf Hannerz (1998), reformulan la antigua oposición entre Gemeinschaft y Gesellschaft, entre comunidad y sociedad. La globalización ha complejizado la dis- tinción entre relaciones primarias, donde se establecen vínculos directos entre personas, y relaciones secundarias, que ocurren entre not reached us. Their literature of patera is still inexistent. In the sense of the word sacrifice, emerging of the same sacrifice as an act, as an action, where the word would play its role. Not as Word-Action-victim’s voice. Today, we are writing on the North shore: on the patera, not from the patera.” (Translation by the author) “As a first step to organize this diversity of situations and in order to rethink the impotence that induces the remoteness of the abstraction of the links, I propose to take into account the scheme that Craig Calhoun, and then Ulf Hannerz (1998), reformulate the old opposition between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, between community and society. Globalization has made more complex the distinction between primary relations, where direct nexus are established between individu- Intercultural spaces, transcultural spaces The cultural contacts in intercultural spaces assure a plurality of socio-semantic meanings, of symbolic forms that defy curiosity and at the same time manifest a cognitive dissonance. The plurality aspect, that is distinctive of the interculturality, is a characteristic of the emission of the cultural messages that could cause more confusion than clarify the tenants and that is why the intercultural aspect is centered in the relational aspect of this exchange. It is this characteristic that will contribute to the propagation of the transliteratures. Diversity displays the kaleido- scopic panorama of multiculturalism but it stops there. The intercultural space creates a place and a moment for the conversation, for the exchange of ideas, for the pause, for the encounter. Literature nourishes itself out of these moments while escaping the deafening polemics of the cultural pluralism that fights against the stereotypes and prejudices, racism, xenophobia and other obstacles in order to access a shared dialogue. It would seem that that what is multi- or pluri- precede what is inter-, while sharing all three, three essential points in the process of crea- tion of a space auspicious for the encounter. After having established a certain “understanding” of what is diverse and multiple, and after the participants are in a position of being comfortable to participate, to contribute, and to receive in the exchange, (even though those goals are tem- porary), they seek their integration. In this way, they establish the bases for a more permanent combination that would be attained by the assiduity of the transliterary convocations in the intercultural spaces. These intercultural spaces present themselves in parallel to other intercul- tural spaces where the communication is established in different practices of relation between the participants.