Creolization

Abstract

AbstractDiscourses on the etymology and meaning of the term “creole” and its correlates “creolization” and “creoleness” vary according to the social, historical, and cultural context and in relation to which group is engaging with these terms (Stewart 2007). The criteria that are applied to denote a phenomenon or a person as creole range from origin and phenotype (“race”) to social and cultural features. They are as dependent upon worldviews as are the etymologies of the ethnonyms of various creole groups and the criteria and reasons brought forth to demonstrate creole identity. Using recent examples of various etymologies for the term “creole,” Chaudenson 2001 revealed the basic ideologies they are based on and explains that — in contrast to the “old” etymology, which traces the term back to the Spanishcrioulo— they do not hold up to scientific scrutiny (pp. 1—3). These ambivalent and contradictory discourses on the relevant terminology, ethnonyms, and etymologies are carried out in the public sphere as well as in various academic disciplines. They indicate the social relevance of creole identity, particularly in postcolonial societies where the ambivalence associated with it is largely due to the attending colonial history as part of which creolization took place. In order to reveal and tap the full heuristic potential of the creole terminology, it must be liberated from its normative baggage — not least by situating its etymology in social and historical context.