Category: Garcia Canclini

In the reading about theories of mixture and hybridity, Canclini writes about popular culture and how it is an extremely complex idea. His main topics are in regards to Urban popular culture, the changes that happen in reaction to migration, atypical processes of youth as well as the underemployed who are ‘employed’ in informal markets.  His proposed hypothesis is as follows “that is makes little sense to study these ‘slighted’ processes under the aspect of popular cultures”(206).By analyzing communities and how they come to be incubators of ideas, power, and culture he is able address opposing ideas on humankind as a whole. He writes about his perhaps radical notion regarding whether we should use the term ‘popular’ at all when referring to pop culture as it is just far too broad. To him there seems little sense in using this term and instead he proposes that we use the term ‘hybrid culture’ instead. This hybrid culture he proposes is not purely popular, not purely elite and so on. To him, this is far more accurate and includes all manifestations. He goes on to point out the bond between urban and rural spaces and their relations to mass media. He also describes other areas of the more correctly termed hybrid culture such as national monuments to “reintroduce the question of the modern and postmodern uses of history”(212) We learn how monuments interact and what they represent within contemporary urban symbolism. He also looks at the arts and analyzes the fact that they are often only found in places of ‘high culture’ where much of the public is not able to enjoy it, and that the art that ends up in the public eye “facilitate the interaction of memory with change and the revitalization of heroes thanks to propaganda or transit” and basically where they are able to affect and influence to a greater extent.

Throughout this article Conclini presents theories of hybridization. I found The idea of fragmentation really interesting when he discusses video cassette recorders , videos, photocopiers, video games… The idea that often things are ripped out of context and new versions created. I thought of records and how many musical artists wish for the album to be heard all at once. It’s the whole thing that is supposed to be heard and enjoyed. I thought specifically of the album “Another Side of Bob Dylan”. Its an amazing album, that Bob Dylan recorded in one sitting, without any retakes. Its meant to be heard all together and is really amazing when listened to that way. Not to say that its not good to hear the song ‘all I really wanna do’ on someones mixtape or ipod shuffle. Its just not the same. Anyways, I enjoyed this part of the article the most J

“Canadian consumers buy cars from Germany, Germans take holidays in Italy, Italians buy spices from Africa, Africans import oil from Kuwait, Kuwaitis buy Japanese cameras, and the Japanese buy Canadian lumber.”

This quote from my macroeconomics textbook on The Gains from International Trade, best highlights the notion brought up in Canclini’s text of how “life consists of constantly crossing borders.” The fact that Canadians consume cars from Germany, Germans take holidays in Italy… demonstrates the interconnectedness of our world today and the notion brought up in class, that “borders are now everywhere”. Reading this quote over again really illustrates how the boundaries of nations are slowly disappearing or rather are being redefined. We went into in class on how the the purpose of borders are no longer simply there to divide nations, rather to connect through its facilitation of trade. Inevitably this interaction of goods and services between countries results in a point where cultures mix with one another.

The reason why I decided to include this quote is because of how its relevance to term hybridity as I have interpreted from Canclini’s text. Hybridity as I understand, is not just a repetition of all the other terms we’ve studied so far, rather it tries to capture the current reality of our world. It is complexities reflect the reality of the complexities that are occurring all around us. Hybridity takes into account the expansion of global neo-liberal economic policies. These policies are reshaping the economic, political and social landscape of every country within this world. With increasingly spread of globalization, knowledge technological improvements, immigration, internet and trade, cultural mixing becomes more complex. Canclini introduces a term about mixing that truly takes into account all the changes and complexities that our world is going through today.

I think when countries export and import goods, it is impossible for them to separate aspects of their culture from the good it exports. Every good that a country produces is influenced by its culture and vice versa. Even the very trade agreement made by nations is done through some from of communication where cultural mixing happens. The very usage of products made in other countries brings with it its culture.

This is concept is so complicated I cannot even properly express myself. But it is definetly the most interesting one that we’ve discussed thus far.

..Hibridación…

La lectura de esta semana del escritor argentino Néstor García Canclini describe una teoría más del mestizaje: hibridación. Se me ha complicado un poco encontrar la diferencia entre hibridación y transculturación. En la lectura hace una buena descripción de algunas de las tradiciones latinoamericanas, por ejemplo en las págs. 153 y 154 hace referencia a los carnavales que se acostumbran en diversos países latinoamericanos como Brasil, México, etc.
Además, García hace algunas comparaciones muy específicas para diferenciar o exponer la relación entre dos cosas, por ejemplo en la pag. 173 habla de arte vs. Artesanías y como se relaciona una con la otra, por un lado señala que una de las causas que originan las artesanías es el desempleo, además compara la “alta” con la “baja” cultura y critica el uso o explotación buena o mala (dependiendo del punto de vista en que se vea) de las diferentes formas de expresión o características culturales de ciertos países, por parte de los gobiernos, como es el caso de México. Hablando con relación a lo que García cita, me gustaría contar algo que me ha pasado en los últimos días, primero el fin de semana conocí a un estudiante de geografía que me contaba que él había estado en México, pero solo en Cancún y Puerto Vallarta, por lo que me dice:¡ Pero vamos, eso no es México! En cierta parte tiene razón, la ciudad que se presenta a los turistas quizá no sea que la misma realidad que se vive en el resto del país, porque al igual que otros países, México busca mostrar lo mejor para que un mayor número de personas vengan al país. Ahora se encuentre en una grave problema, porque alrededor del mundo se piensa que visitar México es peligroso y la verdad es que las cosas no son como se muestran en las noticas, es como lo que decía García, que gracias a los medios de comunicación las noticias llegan a un mayor número de personas, tal y como ha sucedido con la cultura y ahora el país tiene una mala imagen que este mismo se ha ido creando…

I had a difficult time for a while trying to pick out of the article what exactly the author’s definition of ‘hybrid culture’ was. Not that the article was not interesting throughout, but until the end I was not all that clear on his meaning.

It was interesting to read about Canclini’s take on the commercialization, if not fabrication of popular culture in Latin American societies. Even more so, how the government and tourist industry exploit what might have once been legitimate and important cultural traditions and employs it for its own benefit. It’s a fascinating link about the interdependence of the different worlds, such as folk culture which represents the ordinary, and politics which represents elite society. It is this interchangeability of the traditional culture being used to enhance modern society, such as to attract tourism, as well as the transformation of popular culture that modernization inflicts.

On page 262. when Canclini is concluding his paper he writes ‘Cultural practices are performances more than actions.’ I feel that this is a very blanket statement. It may express his views, which he backs up, about how other societies perceive Latin American cultures, but it degrades any individual connections to certain cultural traditions and the meanings they still hold for some. Both tourists and country-men alike may be manipulated to some extent on how certain ‘popular cultures’ are expressed, but they does not mean that they are only of a shallow significance.

Cancilini also discusses how with modernization came the permeability of borders. ‘Pop culture’ has lost its authenticity, so now it is ‘just a performance,’ as he says in his conclusion. Depending on geographical position and/or susceptibility to globalization, cultures are fusing with one another and creating ‘hybrid’ cultures. He expresses this best on page 261 by saying: “…today all cultures are border cultures. All the arts develop in relation to other arts: handicrafts migrate from the countryside to the city; movies, videos, and songs that recount events of one people are interchanged with others. Thus, cultures lose the exclusive relation with their territory, but they gain in communication and knowledge.”

Cultures aren’t necessarily fading, they’re fortifying one another. I don’t know if I buy in to the opinion that this means culture is a dated concept, its just going through a change. This is evident in the examples used on how the rural and urban influence one another, and in his examples of border towns. Cultures are definatley fusing, but this doesnt mean they’re losing significance. Popular culture tells the story of a countries history, globalization and ‘hybrid’ societies are just another part of this story.

Nestor Garcia Canclini’s article entitled “ Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity”, talks manily about the development of urban dwellings. They have become microcosms of interweaving and fragmented: humans, land and culture. Cities offer a paradigm for culture and power, and create many opposing thoughts of humankind. Latin American cities scenarios make one perceive both the amalgamation and separation in both high and popular culture. Much global modernity phenomenon in the trends and creation of popular culture is able to be viewed, many of these stratifications of art is impossible to get to and not necessary. A hybrid happens in these forms of art that is more generically termed ‘post-modernism’.By pointing out interesting issues, like the figurative bond between urban and rural spheres in the view of the ever increasing mass media prevalent in most nations today Canclini shows us what one may see when going to a Latin American country. Many of the countries I have been to in Latin America have supported this thought process, much of television broadcasting either has some or a large portion of influence on the style, language and goals of the country and its people. Canclini then goes on to talk about urban reflections, by using examples from national monuments, statues and urban artwork to show the ways in which history and modernity interact on the canvas that is the streets. Other examples of folk and art works tend to be display in museums and usually in areas of ‘high culture’, while the public areas and monuments is where the real contention court lies. Page two hundred and thirty one provides an excellent example for how the author proposes an alternative look at contesting and contention in public areas through the viewpoint of popular culture representations. In the last paragraph of this chapter, the author makes this contesting even clearer between lack of public initiative, acknowledging the symbolism these monuments perform (i.e. creating politeness and conflict) and a detachment from political issues. The most interesting part of Canclinis work, or at least I found to be, is when he discusses the significance of urban graffiti art and the ways in which it allows for imagery to be altered, distorted and rebuild visual realities. Other things  such as comic books, which the author also points out, can have a humoristic approach to speak about the dominant and orthodox view forms.

In Nestor Garcia Canclini’s article, he explores the popularization of folk culture. It was thought that modernization would erase folklore, but instead it has transformed it. The “popular-traditional” has been adopted by the elite culture and the culture industry, in such a way that it is commodified and mass-produced. Facing unemployment, many people turn to making artisans to make a living, or as an way to make a little extra income. Artisans make up apparently “ 18 percent of the economically active population” of Latin America, a number that is surprising as many would think that culture was being eroded by the globalization of Western (mainly American) culture. Now, people whose communities never made handicrafts, or only did for their own personal use, are making them as part of the culture industry. Governments continue to promote the productions of such artisanal work despite the fact that it does not add to the GDP. In places like Mexico, stores dedicated solely to the sale of souvenirs are everywhere, heavily concentrated, obviously, in the tourist destinations that are frequented by Americans. Staying at a Club Med, people can own a little piece of “real”, “authentic” Latin America that they bought in the resort’s gift shop, without even having to venture out into the street.  Folklore is not only catered as a commodity for tourists, however, as states use traditional or popular symbols to reach the population. Nestor Garcia Canclini states that different sectors use folk culture “to affirm their identity, stress a national;-popular political definition or the distinction of a cultivated taste with traditional roots” (154). Through the modernization of communication networks, states can use traditional symbols, dances, festivals, etc to reach all levels of the population, regardless of geographical location or socioeconomic standing. Communities also use folk culture as a way to communicate with the people, to tell history and to teach morality. So, although traditional culture is often produced for the volumes of tourists wishing to take home a little piece of their trip, modernization has allowed traditions to keep being practiced by the population, even if they have been transformed.

Before reading Canclini’s few chapters I thought I had a pretty good idea of what hybridity, as a theory of mixture, would be. I thought that it would be a lot like transculturation except more diverse, less one whole process. In a way, this isn’t an incorrect assumption, but I could never imagined how complex it really is. Hybridity isn’t simply the hybridization of different regional cultures, but the hybridization of almost everything. This is put most simplistically when, in the beginning of chapter 5, Caclini outlines three pairs of processes that are often describes as polar opposites. Before I even started to read I noticed this and, knowing exactly what he was showing, instantly thought of some things that proved these perceived polarities incorrect.

Not surprisingly, that is exactly what Caclini does for the next three chapters, although in great, great detail. Using examples from Latin American culture, he shows that the ideas of the traditional, modern, popular, and cultured are not exclusive, but rather hybridized in various ways in all culture. His most extensive demonstration of this is the ways in which folk culture is affected by modernization and “Art” (high art). He shows that, far from destroying folk culture, the modern economy actually encourages it (in the right circumstances) and helps shape it, so that it seems what is “folk” will never die, but will constantly evolve as does everything else.

He goes on describing all sorts of instances of culture and it is increasingly revealed that almost all cultural, social, economic, and political processes and actors interact according to circumstance. What is a produced is culture that is, in various ways, a hybridization of hybridizations of hybridizations of everything. Complex processes produce a collage of interlinked, conflicting, and diverse elements. This in turn challenges our perceived borders. Borders of states, of class, of ethnicity, and of terminology or category.

I really liked this reading and hope we go into great detail on it in class.

This article was somewhat confusing.  However, there is one point that Canclini makes that I agree in part with, but not totally.

First of all, I must admit that Canclini’s article was a bit difficult to follow. He really deals with numerous complex themes and he doesn’t really focus on the term ‘hybridity’ which gave me troubles to understand its meaning. I hope we’ll clarify this in class.

However the overall impression I get is that hybridity is fundamentally linked with modernity and the different processes that are linked to it such as urban growth, deteritorialisation, migrations and transnationalisation. The former cultural hierarchy that used to be the standard no longer exists because of the amount of interactions, exchanges, migrations that happen all the time between what was before considered as cultural territories. Power relationships are no longer concentric and become more and more complex. Sociopolitical relations are nowadays decentred and multidetermined which has completely changed the nature and the former exclusivity of cultures.

I also think that Canclini’s reflexion is very much centred on the idea that territories have been transcended. “All cultures are border cultures”. I found really interesting the passage concerning the different cities at the US/Mexico borders. The hybridization of people’s cultures there is extremely emphasized. I find fascinating and very optimistic that these processes has helped to develop a much more tolerant and open interpretation of cultural identities. To be honest the reason why I was particularly interested by this topic is because I’ve done my review paper on the cultural identities of Central American immigrants in San Francisco focusing on the mural paintings of the Latin American district.

I think that what this article says is that it is practically impossible today for a culture to stay “authentic” and not to encounter others influences, which is the base for explaining the process of hybridization. The example of historical monuments integrated to the dynamics of the city was a really good example of hybridity; the interaction of memory (history) and change (modernity).

Basically the difference between hybridity and mestizaje for example would be that the way Canclini explains hybridization looks like a report on the state of cultural identities in our modern world, whereas mestizaje is an objective, an ideal to reach. Hybridity has also to do with the strong acceptation and emphasis of these cultural identities at the intersection of different worlds by the people who are directly concerned. Once again I think I’m gonna stop my ramblings here, before saying anything stupid. These concepts become more and more difficult to really understand.

Hybridity…is it really that natural? From a biological perspective hybridity is commonly a result of human manipulation of genetics – cross-breeding… borne from hyperactive imaginations of scientists with too much time granted to them or childhood desires to fulfill and realize all those creatures that are harvested in magical bedtime stories. Some popular (and scholarly) sources claim that the seeming ‘realness’ of those creatures with their vibrant coats of fur, and eloquent animalistic chatter was probably due to (forceful) milk consumption before the settling into a peaceful slumber. Either way, hybridity is essentially just another fabrication, rarely “authentic” in the natural world. This ‘authenticity’ is mentioned in Canclini’s exerpts within the context of modernity, where modernity enthusiastically asserts itself as the silent genius puppeteering behind the scenes, dictating the progression of popular culture and the stamina of its authenticity and ingenuity. Canclini reveals that “modernizers draw the moral that their interest in the advances and promises of history justifies their hegemonic position: meanwhile the backwardness of the popular classes condemns them to subalternity” (146), and almost as an afterthought states how hegemony is a “constructed character” (146). In the ‘Staging of the Popular’, Canclini relates Folklore with Authenticity as though they were long lost blood relatives subconsciously channeling each other’s life paths only to have a fateful reunion by happenstance on a glorious autumn day. Where Folklore subconsciously channels authenticity (within the discourse of the popular) and can only be preserved by allowing modernity dictate its development. Evidence of these relations is witnessed in the way that “Folklore… is almost always a melancholic attempt at subtracting the popular from the massive reorganization of society, fixing it in artisanal forms of production and communication, and guarding it as an imaginary reserve of nationalist political discourses.” (151) whereby communication (in this case) represents the modern (communication being the brainchild of technology which happens to be THE right hand man of Modernity). The notion that modernity, despite being construed as damaging folklore and what is considered ‘authentic’, is the automobile of choice for the transportation of folk/authenticity into the future is one full of complexities that cause the uprising of questions-galore. It acknowledges the dependence of certain elements of folklore on modernity in order to make them popular enough to be granted exclusive rights to conservation, consequently resulting in immortality. The interdependence seems to rely on the dynamics between institutionilized views of the popular (i.e. media, basically the mediums of communication) in the creation of the ‘hybrid’ form of the folklore where only certain elements of the original or authentic folk have been conserved, and then incorporated with other characteristics to guarantee survival. Cue Questions: Can folklore hybrids which are appraised by the media (popularity points!) be considered authentic? Who or what decides the elements that gain special priviledges to being cryonically preserved in time? How come folklore has to be sugar-coated by modernity in order ensure its own survival? Maybe some questions can be answered Clancini himself who states that “popular condition – [is] dedicated to the oppositions between isolated subalterns and dominating cosmopolitans” (172) and, “with the artistic and the artisanal being included in mass processes of message circulation, their sources of appropriation of images and forms and their channels of distribution and audiences tend to coincide, ” (175): both quotations address the power relations involved in the creation of folklore hybrids which please the masses, henceforth becoming elements of popular culture. To add more complications, Canclini introduces: the concept of a “culture industry” (186), the possibility of “mass culture [as] the great competitor of folklore” (187) and another shade of the ‘popular’ where
“the popular designates the positions of certain actors, which situate them against the hegemonic group and not always in the form of confrontations” (203). All this within the two chapters that have no trace whatsoever of “Hybrid” within their titles. As interest wanes, fatigue emerges and a hint of boredom makes a cameo appearance, only to be refuted by complete annoyance at Canclini for first of all playing with my feelings and secondly not creating a pefectly bundled definition of the “Theories of Mixture III: Hybridity” with trimmings that would challenge even Martha Stewart’s expertise in the Domestic, Canclini decides to explain hybridization as “the breakup and mixing of the collections that used to organize cultural systems, the deterritorialization of symbolic processes, and the expansion of impure genres” (207). He also lets me in on his grand secret of appearing to be cultured (and becoming a bonafide people magnet), leaning over my shoulder and wisely gazing down upon my naivety in a way eeriely reminiscent of Marlon Brando, he huskily recounts “to be cultured in a modern city consists in knowing how to distinguish between what is purchased for use, what is commemorated and what is enjoyed symbolically” (221) that “the notion of an authentic culture as an autonomous internally coherent universe is no longer sustainable” (232), sensing my confusion in dissapointment (a confusion which I was trying to fool him – and myself – into thinking that it was reverence), he jauntily limps away mumbling a barely audible and impacting proverb, “today all cultures are border cultures” (261).

While this article was a bit hard to get through, due to its wordiness, I felt like it covered some very interesting topics. However, the topic of hybridity wasn’t really covered in depth until the very end of the article, and to be honest, by that point I wasn’t being as diligent with my comprehension as I was in the first half of the article.

Now that I look back over the article, I see that the topic of hybridity was somewhat covered in the beginning of the article when Canclini discussed the mixing of traditional and modernity in popular cultures. He points out how mass media, as an example of modernity, gives new meaning to popular culture.

I particularly enjoyed the arguments Canclini made about folk culture and the state. Power is given to both when we analyze the tourist industry. The state uses folk culture and turns it into a tourist attraction, presenting the country’s “national identity”. However, at the same time, folk culture is given a certain amount of power, because without it, the state would not be able to promote tourism in the same way that they can, through use of the folk culture industry.

I also enjoyed Canclini’s comparison of anthropology and sociology. Canclini states that anthropology is interested in “saving” traditional and soon-to-be-extinct cultures, whereas sociology is interested in the effects of modernization on society. Canclini points out that both disciplines result in overlooking different aspects of society.

Canclini’s discussion of the role of monuments in society was very interesting. I’ve never thought of monuments in the way that Canclini has; however, his discussion of them brings new meaning to monuments for me. The author describes how monuments, although they may commemorate a specific time or moment in history, are resignified in modern society as they are built into the cities or towns. They are not enclosed in a glass box, such as they would be in a museum, for people to look at from afar. Rather, they are incorporated into the surroundings of a city, and people are able to interact with the monuments. Certain juxtapositions can then occur, such as the demonstration in favor of abortions occurring alongside a monumental statue of mother holding her son.

Lastly, I found Canclini’s hybridization case studies on graffiti and comics a great way to solidify his discussions of the theory of hybridization. In analyzing graffiti and comics and the roles they play in modern-day society, we see the processes of hybridization in material forms. Comics mix the use of images and words/dialogue with subject matter often pertaining to current issues whether economic, political or social. Graffiti, on the other hand, is a way of reclaiming territory, a form of expression that provides a voice for marginalized segments of society who may not have access to more widely used forms of communication.

I see that hybridization involves a mixing of different elements, such as Canclini discussed in the topic of border towns like Tiajuana, however I’m still not sure of how hybridization is different from mestizaje or transculturation. Hybridization seems to me to fit somewhere in between mestizaje and transculturation, with less stress on how the cultures mix and more stress on the end product, however I could be completely wrong!

Theories of Mixture III: hybridity
I have a history class this semester and in the tutorial we were talking about U.S. cultural Imperialism, and one of my classmates said that she did not think that the U.S. had anything to do with that because the American government was not forcing other countries to embrace American culture. Then, the TA asked Ana what do you think about that coming from Mexico, and I just tried to explain what it says at the beginning of the article that only the rich-powerful people and the government in Mexico have the choice to embrace American culture but that the other classes are forced to consumed it. For example when the government authorizes rich people to open a Wal-Mart the people with less resources have no choice and of course they buy there because it is cheaper than other stores. On page 146 it says that “the backwardness of the popular classes condemns them to sub-alternity” I do not agree with the idea saying that people of the lower classes are backwards or inferior. I think that adjective is used by rich people to keep their control over those people. I think that the article makes the reader to ask the question of where the authentic parts of a culture get eaten up by commercialization. On page 168 the author writes that some communities in Guerrero, Mexico are increasing their minimum wage because they started painting on the amate which is easy to transport as opposed to ceramics. I think here one can see in the effort to persevere something in this case pre-Hispanic art, the art losses its “authentic” essence and becomes a commercial product. But at the same time there is the ambiguity in what people consider authentic.
I also found interesting how the notion of mass culture makes people from one society generalize people of another society. For example, the assumption that Mexican people are all exactly the same without recognizing regional differences such as the ways of speaking and dressing, and that applies to all other the countries in the world. I liked also the part on page 188 where it says that the “popular does not consist of what the people have or are, but what becomes accessible, what they like” because one can see that what becomes “popular” is a mixture of what one part of the society (rich) allows the other part to have and the people of this part takes what they liked of the accessible options.