This was quite an interesting and informative reading. Canclini talks about hybridization as a socio- and anthropological concept and describes it as a phenomenon in where “discrete structures or practices, previously existing in separate form, are combined to generate new structures, objects and practices”. He insists that we need to focus not on the study of hybridity itself but the processes of hybridization. Hybridization occurs in an unplanned manner through migration, tourism, exchange of ideas through media, but foremostly, it emerges from “individual and collective creativity”. For example, a painter becomes a designer to fit in with new conditions of production, or rural migrants adapt and learn new skills (farmers become shopkeepers or construction workers) to work in the city. Hybridization opens up doors to the possibility of modifying culture and politics rather than boxing cultures and identities into neat labels.

We exist in the age of globalization where we are constantly exposed to and mingling with foreign cultures and belief systems. For example, indigenous people of Mexico mestizo-ized with white colonizers, the mestizos themselves chicano-ized by traveling to US, manyreshaped their habits based on mass media, others acquired higher education and used it to enrich their traditional inheritance with resources and assets from foreign countries. Thus, studying the processes of hybridization allows us to refrain from neglecting any people or cultures that diverge from the predefined fixed set of characteristics. It helps avoid tendencies towards segregation (which almost never works well if you think about it, for example, racially segregated neighborhoods in UK or USA (Chicago etc) have much higher rates of violence and have higher rates of poverty). I found this one sentence really interesting, “We can choose to live in a state of war or in a state of hybridization”. Thus, we can either accept that hybridization is inevitable and mold ourselves to it, or we can choose to fight an un-winnable battle against it. Canclini definitely sees hybridization and globalization as an inevitable but also positive concept, however, at the same time, he is cautious as to not paint an overly optimistic picture

Canclini definitely sees hybridization and globalization as an inevitable but also positive concept, however, at the same time, he is cautious as to not paint an overly optimistic picture. He acknowledges that sometimes hybridization can indeed be destructive and it comes with its own sets of limitations. Hybridization does not always “integrate, producing mestizaje” it also “segregates, producing new inequalities”. Corporations as well as the rich and powerful first-world countries (such as USA) exploit ethnic groups through globalization via appropriation, commercialization of their practices, exploitation of labor, etc.

But it is interesting to note that living in a multicultural country such as Canada, we like to claim that Canada is a cultural mosaic and not a “melting pot”, but is it really? Over time, has any group of immigrants been able to remain “pure and untouched”? To some extent, none of us have been able to remain immune to the influences of hybridization. We are intrigued by foreign cultures, we “exoticize” them, accept them, try to incorporate them, however we do not accept them indiscriminately. In the words of Ribeiro, some people think: “I’ll listen to their music, but they’re not marrying my daughter”. Thus, while hybrization does bring with it benefits, as we are able to enjoy the best of ALL WORLDS, it isn’t all amazing as the societies still remain stratified. Even in mixing, there is always a winner and a loser: we are led to believe we are all equals, but some are more equal than others.