The Creation of the International Institute for Afro-American Studies: Power Dynamics and Ortiz’s Postcolonial Vision

Re: Creation of the International Institute for Afro-American Studies

For years there has been the intention of founding a center devoted especially to the problems of the Black populations of America, of their study, their history, their cultures, etc. But time and again, opposition to this project had arisen…The time seemed to have come to build such an organism, without official status and with merely scientific purposes for the special study of these problems (emphasis mine). The idea was enthusiastically received and on October 20 [1943] in Mexico City, the act creating the International Institute of Afro-American Studies was signed. (Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos 2016, 145).^[1]The letters and memorandums included in this article have been translated by the author.

Founded in Mexico in November 1943, the International Institute of Afro-American Studies (IIAAS) was not just a scientific endeavor. Its founders had a significant political agenda. Fernando Ortiz, a Cuban anthropologist and prominent scholar of Afro-Cuban culture, led efforts to establish the IIAAS. His work on transculturation and the cultural history of African-descended populations positioned him as a key figure in studying racial and cultural dynamics in the Americas.^[2]At the time, Ortiz had recently published one of his most renowned works, Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar (1940), and had already conducted extensive research on Afrodescendant populations in Cuba. His previous works included De la música afrocubana: Un estímulo para su estudio (1934) and Glosario de Afronegrismos (1924). Ortiz’s efforts to establish the IIAAS reveal the intricate power dynamics within anthropology and underscore his ability to create a center with a clear postcolonial agenda. He envisioned an institute that would unite the Americas in the study of Afro-descendant populations, fostering intellectual exchange across countries while also challenging the dominance of perspectives from certain US scholars, such as Melville J. Herskovits.

Ortiz first envisioned IIAAS during his travels to the United States in May 1943. On this trip, he visited several universities and participated in a meeting of the Committee on Negro Studies of the American Council of Learned Societies, chaired by Herskovits and Donald R. Young (Perez Valdez 2016). This meeting also included figures such as Sterling Brown and Richard Pattee (ibid.). The purpose of this meeting was the creation of the Inter-American Society of Negro Studies (Sociedad Interamericana de Estudios Negros), and the establishment of a quarterly publication titled Afroamerica. Ortiz was nominated as the proposed editor (ibid.). However, this idea, along with Ortiz’s earlier suggestion in 1941 to hold an International Conference on Afro-Americans in Havana, remained unrealized, shelved by the American Council of Learned Societies (ibid.).

In November 1943, after a meeting of the first Demographic Congress (1943) held in Mexico City, a group of Latin American scholars led by Ortiz decided to establish the IIAAS. The Institute was conceived as a center for the study of peoples, histories, and cultures of African descent and the serious problems associated with racial prejudices. That memorandum that announced it in 1943 (Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos 2016) established that the Institute would not only work in the Americas but would have an international approach. A different memorandum issued in 1944 announced the formation of the Institute’s Executive Committee, with Ortiz as Director, Gonzalo Aguirre as Vice Director (Mexico), Renato de Mendoza as Secretary (Brazil), Daniel Rubin de la Borbolla as Treasurer (Mexico), and Jorge Vivó as Head of Publishing (Cuba). The Institute also listed consultants, including Carlos Basauri (Mexico), Alfonso Caso (Mexico), Miguel Covarrubias (Mexico), Auguste Remy (Haiti), Melville Herskovits (USA), Alain Locke (USA), Arthur Ramos (USA), and Julio Le Riverend (Cuba) (Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos 1944a). Ortiz also invited W. E. B. Du Bois to become a founding member (Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos 1944a). Du Bois agreed to be part of the Institute and expressed his willingness to contribute as an editor to the Institute’s journal, Afroamerica (Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos 1944b; Du Bois 1944). Despite this achievement—conceived as an effort to integrate the perspectives of scholars working on populations of African descent at an international level—the IIAAS faced numerous difficulties in carrying out its mission.

The Institute faced resistance from influential scholar Melville, who reluctantly agreed to join the IIAAS as a consultant despite his reservations. Although it never materialized, Herskovits had his own plans for a similar institution with a competing vision, the Inter-American Society of Negro Studies. In a letter he sent to Ortiz on 7 December 1943 (quoted in Pérez Valdés 2016, 162), he wrote that he learned about the Institute’s creation through an article by Professor Irene Diggs published in the Pittsburgh Courier.^[3]Irene Diggs became Fernando Ortiz’s doctoral student at the University of Havana in 1943. Regarding the IIAAS, he mentioned that he was particularly interested in understanding its relationship with his planned Inter-American Society of Negro Studies, which was to be based in Washington under his direction(ibid.). He sensed a potential for duplication, especially in light of the planned Afroamerica journal, which Herskovits also wanted to create under the same name (ibid.).

The Acculturation-Transculturation Debate

The animosity between Ortiz and Herskovits extended beyond the founding of the IIAAS, originating years earlier in a debate over the concept of acculturation.

One of Ortiz’s most recognized theoretical contributions is the concept of transculturation, introduced in the book Cuban Counterpoint: Tobacco and Sugar (1940). Ortiz developed this concept in distinction from the Anglo-American term acculturation, which described the “phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact” (Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits 1936, 149), emphasizing the assimilation of a minority by a dominant culture (Herskovits 1937). Transculturation describes a more dynamic process of cultural transformation, where systems synthesize to create new and differentiated cultural hybrids (Ortiz, 1940). Ortiz’s formulation of this concept has been widely studied by anthropologists and cultural theorists, emphasizing its significance in understanding cultural exchange, particularly in postcolonial contexts (Arroyo 2016; Palmié 2021; Arnedo‐Gómez 2022).

Nonetheless, during the writing of the book, analyzing sugar and tobacco in Cuba was considered a risky endeavor, as these two products were deeply intertwined with the country’s economic history and social identity (Santí 2002). Sugar, in particular, played a significant role in generating immense wealth for the elites during General Gerardo Machado’s presidency, which spanned from 1925 to 1933 (Santí 2002; 2005). Perhaps due to this and a trip that Malinowski made to Cuba, Ortiz convinced Malinowski to write the introduction to the book, which would lend scientific authority and thus make it less controversial (Coronil 1995; Santí 2002). Ultimately, it became apparent that the introduction did not serve only Ortiz’s interests, but also benefited Malinowski’s desire to conscript Ortiz to functionalism (Smith-Mesa 2022; Santi 2004; 2005).^[4]At the time, British functionalism was considered “the most vigorous tendency in social anthropology” (Lesser 1935). Developed by Bronisław Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, functionalism represented a shift away from speculative and historical approaches, focusing instead on the observable roles of institutions such as family, economy, and education (Malinowski 1944; Kuper 1973). Functionalism was particularly influential in British anthropology during the 1920s and 1930s, with its emphasis on fieldwork as a cornerstone of the discipline (Kuper 1973). During the Second World War, while residing in the United States, Malinowski wrote The Scientific Theory of Culture (1944), one of his most prominent works on functionalism, which was published posthumously (Harris 1968). In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Malinowski actively worked to recruit scholars to his school of thought and to further refine and promote his ideas on functionalism (Harris 1968).

In an exchange of letters written before 1940, Malinowski hinted that he was preparing an introductory essay to the book, focusing on the relationship that Ortiz’s work had with functionalism (Coronil 1995; Santí 2002). However, it is difficult to argue that Ortiz’s work fit within functionalism (Le Riverend 1978; Coronil 1995; Santí 2002). According to Coronil (1995) and Santí (2002), Malinowski wrote the introduction in an effort to recruit Ortiz to functionalism. However, in a letter published by Santí (2002), Ortiz explained to Malinowski that he wanted the Polish anthropologist to serve as an authorized voice to “baptize” this newly introduced concept. Ortiz’s correspondence with Malinowski was therefore crucial in contributing to the development of the concept of transculturation (Smith-Mesa 2022).

Nevertheless, Santí (2004; 2005) has contended that both Ortiz’s and Malinowski’s criticisms of the term acculturation are not well founded. As Herskovits wrote in a letter to Ortiz defending acculturation, it did not imply a “handing down a superior civilization to a savage folk. The term as we use in our scientific work is indeed entirely colorless” (Santí 2002, 786). In that same letter, Herskovits accused Malinowski’s students of “discussing cultural contact in terms of inculcation (…) writing of culture contact” (Santí 2002, 786). In a letter sent in November 1940, Ortiz wrote to Malinowski, letting him know Herskovits did not like the term and that he was expecting a “blitzkrieg” (Ortiz 2016, 8) of academic criticism that would arrive from Chicago.^[5]At the time Herskovits was a full professor of anthropology at Northwestern University.

Santí (2002) describes different motivations behind the criticisms of acculturation. For Ortiz, the term was conceptually imprecise, but this critique was perhaps because Herskovits omitted Ortiz’s Cuban Counterpoint from his 1930 article, “The Negro in the New World” (Iznaga 1998; Santí 2002). Malinowski, on the other hand, objected to acculturation on ethical and political grounds, as he saw it as perpetuating colonial hierarchies and disguising power imbalances. His resentment against Herskovits was further heightened by ongoing debates around applied anthropology, professional ethics, the natives’ position in anthropology, and the colonial nature of some anthropologists’ work (Santí 2002). In this context, according to Santí (2005), Malinowski aligned himself with Ortiz’s concept of transculturation, finding in it a theoretical alternative that critiqued Anglo-American approaches and countered the critiques of British anthropology by American scholars. In this debate, Malinowski would argue that acculturation concealed British anthropology’s disdain against the natives (Santí 2002). Engaging with a Cuban anthropologist like Ortiz, who had extensively studied African-descended populations, provided Malinowski with a compelling argument in this debate (Santí 2002).

Malinowski’s interested defense of the concept is evident in his usage of this term in his publications after 1940, meriting only two mentions (Coronil 1995). Ortiz also felt he needed validation and support from scholars in the Americas and Europe, as the development of the IIAAS illustrates.

The Rise and Fall of the IIAAS and Afroamerica

According to Perez Valdez (2016), Herskovits’s attacks on Ortiz’s work lasted several years. In a letter to Cuban anthropologist Le Riverend in January 1944, Ortiz stated that he was glad that the Institute begged him to work and develop its first bulletin, but that he urgently needed materials to be able to respond to a rather sarcastic letter from Herskovits (Ortiz 2016, 165).^[6]See introduction for a reference to this letter. In another letter that same month, Ortiz responded to Herskovits by explaining that the IIAAS had been established during a meeting in Mexico, where members of the First Inter-American Congress of Demography agreed on its necessity (ibid.). Ortiz also conveyed that he left Washington feeling completely pessimistic, worried that the project had failed because he had not received any news about the proposed institute in six months (ibid.). This conclusion was reinforced by his previous attempts to organize meetings in Havana and Port-au-Prince, which he believed were deliberately sabotaged before they could take place (ibid.). Moreover, he mentioned “that there is currently some hostility in the United States towards these kinds of meetings” (ibid.). On the other hand, he believed that “the environment in Mexico is very favorable for discussing these racial issues, as there is not the same level of prejudice there as in other countries” (ibid.).

After exchanging several letters, on February 5, 1944, Herskovits agreed to join the IIAAS despite reservations about its location and scope (Ortiz 2016, 169). However, Ortiz knew that it was necessary to have Black scholars (including Rayford Logan, W. E. B. Du Bois, and/or Alain Locke) “equilibrate” Herskovits’s personality, as he conveyed in a letter to the Institute’s vice director Gonzalo Aguirre in May 1944 (Ortiz 2016, 198).

The Institute continued to face criticism after its establishment. For example, Peruvian scholar Fernando Romero believed that Mexico had no specialists in Black populations. Still, Ortiz later convinced him that its location in Mexico was the right decision (Ortiz 2016, 196). Nonetheless, Romero thought that the Institute could become a branch of the Inter-American Society of Negro Studies conceived by Herskovits (ibid.). Ortiz argued that Washington had demonstrated its incapacity to create such an organism due to intense racial problems in the United States and the different groups created for this issue (Ortiz 2016, 197). The “neutrality” of Mexico was key to the impartial study of African American cultures and history (ibid.).

In 1945, the first issue of Afroamerica was published with articles written in Spanish, English, French, and Portuguese. The issue’s first article was “Problems, Method and Theory in Afroamerican Studies” by Herskovits (1945). In letters to Vivó and Aguirre, Ortiz expressed hope that with the publication of this issue, the Institute would consolidate and some of the uncertainties and the bad intentions surrounding its creation would disappear and counteract the apparent reluctance of those expected to actively support the IIAAS (Ortiz 2016, 219; Ortiz 2016, 352).

Regardless, in the following letter to Vivó 15 days later, Ortiz commented that he was not surprised by Herskovits’s comments regarding his criticism of the journal Afroamerica (Ortiz 2016, 232).^[7]In a letter cited by Pérez Valdés (2016, 196), Romero lets Ortiz know of his correspondence with Herskovits where the latter suggests Afroamerica should have enough material and funding for several issues before next issues are published. These comments were in line with what others had told Ortiz about Herskovits’s efforts to sabotage all institutes for Afro-American studies that he didn’t control, which generated disputes with Black scholars (ibid.). Furthermore, in a letter to Le Riverend in November 1945, he argued that the IIAAS’s economic difficulties confirmed his suspicions that the North Americans involved in the journal had sabotaged the Institute economically (Ortiz 2016, 238). Herskovits’s criticisms continued, as seen in a letter that Le Riverend wrote to Ortiz in June 1947, letting him know about an exchange with the American anthropologist, where the former had criticized the IIAAS because of its location in Mexico and noted that he would even prefer that it be moved to Cuba under Ortiz’s management (Ortiz 2016, 391).

Afroamerica only published two issues, one in 1945 and one in 1946. The second issue was dedicated to Black populations and modern democracy in the United States. According to Perez Valdez (2016), the journal and its projection were not what Ortiz had envisioned. During the second part of the 1940s, Ortiz tried to expand the scope of the Institute and Afroamerica, writing letters to different anthropologists and associations to seek support (Pérez Valdés 2016). In 1948, in an effort to revive the Institute that had received inadequate attention, he tried to organize the first meeting of the IIAAS in Caracas, Venezuela (Ortiz 2016, 442). The meeting did not take place. In a letter to the French anthropologist Roger Bastide in 1949, Ortiz explained that the IIAAS was on pause due to difficulties finding financial backing (Ortiz 2016, 468). Moreover, he argued that the North Americans did not have any interest in supporting the Institute because they did not want the Institute to analyze racist dynamics within the United States (ibid.).

Conclusion

Despite significant opposition, Ortiz’s ability to establish the IIAAS reflects his commitment to creating a genuinely postcolonial intellectual space. His success in positioning the Institute in Mexico, rather than Washington, highlights his resistance to the dominance of United States-centered academic institutions. Ultimately, Ortiz’s vision for the IIAAS was not only to unite scholars across the Americas but also to challenge power imbalances within anthropology and promote a more inclusive understanding of African-descended populations globally.^[8]A similar effort made in the same decade was the Center for Afro Colombian Studies created in Colombia in 1947 (Polo Tous 2019). This is demonstrated in the two issues of Afroamerica (Fernández López 2013). However, his efforts were short-lived due to financial, logistical, and political interests of some established American anthropologists like Herskovits. The tensions around founding a Latin American-centered institute highlight the power imbalances that shaped the discipline in the mid-twentieth century.

Works Cited

Arnedo‐Gómez, Miguel. 2022. “Fernando Ortiz’s Transculturation: Applied Anthropology, Acculturation, and Mestizaje.” The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 27 (1-2): 123-145.

Arroyo, Jossianna. 2016. “Transculturation, Syncretism, and Hybridity.” In Critical Terms in Caribbean and Latin American Thought: Historical and Institutional Trajectories, edited by Yolanda Martínez-San Miguel, Ben. Sifuentes-Jáuregui, and Marisa Belausteguigoitia. Palgrave Macmillan US.

Coronil, Fernando. 1995. Introduction Transculturation and the Politics of Theory to Cuban Counterpoint, by Fernando Ortiz. Duke University Press.

Du Bois, William Edward Burghardt. 1944. Letter from W. E. B. Du Bois to International Institute of Afro-American Studies. In W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

Fernández López, Marietta. 2013. “La revista afroamerica y la pertinencia de una red de intercambio intelectual en américa y el caribe.” Revista Cuadernos del Caribe 16 (1): 128-132.

Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory. A History of the Theories of Culture. Columbia University.

Herskovits, Melville J. 1937. “The Significance of the Study of Acculturation for Anthropology.” American Anthropologist 39(2): 259-264.

Herskovits, Melville J. 1945. “Problem, Method and Theory in Afroamerican Studies.” Afroamerica 1: 5-24.

Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos. 1944. Letter from Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos to W. E. B. Du Bois. W. E. B. Du Bois Papers (MS 312). Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

Instituto Internacional de Estudios Afroamericanos. 2016. Memorandum 05. Correspondencia de Fernando Ortiz. 1940-1949. Iluminar la fronda, edited by Trinidad Pérez Valdés. Fundación Fernando Oritz.

Iznaga, Diana. 1989. Transculturación en Fernando Ortiz. Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Kuper, Adam. 1973.Anthropologists and Anthropology. Pica Press.

Le Riverend, Julio. 1978. Introducción Ortiz y su Contrapunteo to Contrapunteo cubano del tabaco y el azúcar, by Fernando Ortiz.Biblioteca Ayacucho.

Lesser, Alexander. 1935. “Functionalism in social anthropology.” American Anthropologist 37 (3): 386-393.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1944. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. UNC Press.

Ortiz, Fernando. 1924. Glosario de afronegrismos. Imprenta el Siglo XX.

Ortiz, Fernando. 1934. De la música afrocubana: Un estímulo para su estudio. Revista Universidad de la Habana 3 (1): 1-15.

Ortiz, Fernando. 1940. Contrapunteo cubano del tabaco y el azúcar. Jesús Montero.

Ortiz, Fernando. 2016. Correspondencia de Fernando Ortiz 1940-1949. Iluminar la fronda, edited by Trinidad Pérez Valdés. Fundación Fernando Oritz.

Palmié, Stephan. 2021. “Caribbean and Mediterranean Counterpoints and Transculturations.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 11 (1): 7-32.

Pérez Valdés, Trinidad, comp. 2016. Correspondencia de Fernando Ortiz. 1940-1949. Iluminar la fronda. Fundación Fernando Oritz.

Polo, Jhoinner. 2019. “Contexto racial de Colombia y Cartagena durante 1943-1970: mestizaje e identidad negra.” Revista Aläula 6: 7-21.

Redfield, Robert., Linton, Ralph. and Herskovits, Melville J. 1936. Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 38: 149-152. 

Santí, Enrico. 2002. Fernando Ortiz: Contrapunteo y transculturación. Colibrí.

Santí, Enrico. 2004. “Towards a Reading of Fernando Ortiz’s Cuban Counterpoint.” Review: Literature and Arts of the America’s 37 (1): 6-18.

Santí, Enrico. 2005. Ciphers of History: Latin American Readings for a Cultural Age. Palgrave Macmillan.

Smith-Mesa, Vladimir. 2022. Transcultural Letters An Epistolary Approach to the Transcultural Discourse (The Correspondence of Bronisław Malinowski & Fernando Ortiz).

This piece was edited by Benjamin Hegarty and Bethany G. Anderson.