WHILST THE TERM “cultural transfer” is frequently met when discussing cultural transmission, that of “cultural exchange” is both underused and undertheorized. Lynne Tatlock and Matt Erlin view “cultural transfer” as intrinsically marked by a tension arising out of the power struggle for dominance between donor and recipient. By identifying identity and nationality as a key cultural battlefield, they see the process of transfer as a competitive means of establishing intra-cultural relations, of breaking down homogeneity, and of constructing new and hybrid cultures.

Cultural exchange is conceptually innovative as a transfer model because it implies the possibility of the flow or transmission of culture in multiple directions, to and from, forwards and backwards, which results in a culture that is essentially shared and mixed. The tension here relates to whether this transaction is perceived by the participants as a threat to the original cultural entity, and whether a form of cultural interdependence is initiated. Literary texts that are commonly used for this discussion frequently have colonialism, race, nationality, and travel as their themes. Characteristically, this textual group will tend to focus on the means and modes of multipolar cultural transactions and their effect on individuals, on contested sites of exchange (such as borders and islands), or on common ground, now often called “contact zones,” where two or more cultures meet.

Not only is it essential to develop cultural exchange models that concentrate on the causes and origins of exchange, it is also important to focus on the agent and the cultural object itself, regardless of whether it is abstract or material in form.