Guillermo Gomez-Pena’s excerpt was super interesting to me as Marcos ingeniously inspired the people and constructed his whole persona with the ways, desires and tendencies of the people/media. El Sup observed the structures in which people interact with and create their own knowledge (which in turn create themselves and their own perceptions) and infiltrated  peoples perceptions with relatability and dominating sources of information (with powerful images etc). With an almost dialectical technique, Marcos was both powerful and humble, of the people and of the world, a revolutionary leader and a sex icon, everything people wanted him to be without anyone knowing who he was. As humans, we are extremely dialectical and it was interesting to me how Marcos utilised this human tendency to help construct his identity and his relations/grip on the people and the media. That being said, the love affair with el Sup had to end, just like telenovelas, and the people moved on to the next big thing, as we tend to do with our diminishing attention spans.  In relation to our last reading on hybridity, it was interesting to see how Marcos’ ” sophisticated internationalism” and ability to relate  and be a part of pop-culture (as an exotic sex icon) allowed him to be connected and liked by the people.

“At one point it became hard to draw a line between radical politics and pop-culture, between solidarity and revolutionary consumerism”

Mary C. Beltran explores “the politics of representation” specifically in the case of Jennifer Lopez’ ‘star image’ at the end of 1998. Beltran investigates the sexualization of Lopez  as a ‘cross over figure’ moving into the hollywood mainstream. The question is raised whether the sexualization of Lopez perpetuates the stereotypes of Latinas or is an image of empowerment supporting those with non-model-thin bodies to celebrate their curves. Reading this made me a little itchy as it is a sensitive topic that can deals just as much with the politics representation as a woman as well as a person of a minority. Additionally the comparison between Spanish-language-media vs english-language-media was intriguing. The depiction of Jennifer Lopez could be an indication to what is seen as favourable traits to either culture. In spanish-media there could possibly an emphasis on family and relation to the people and western media– the body and sex. Jennifer Lopez claimed power to her own body by loving and showing off her butt, an asset (pun intended) that is glorified in our current day.

— I wasn’t able to do the full Patria Roman Velazquez reading as essays are piling up but will return to this.

This reading had a similar theme of reinvestigating a commonly used term (hybrid/hybridisation) and deconstructing and critiquing the current and potential application of the term. Canclini’s writing was intriguing as his thoughts and findings are applicable to many aspects of how the world functions in these globalised times.

One thing I found interesting was, the concept of a ‘pure point of origin’ never really existing in this globalised state. This reminded me of an advertisement I saw recently by the travel company Momondo (even though it might be a bit of a tangent in regard to Latin American studies). The ad had 67 participants  take a DNA test that shows their ancestry (click here for video). Prior to showing the participants the results, the people were asked where they thought they were from and a few participants expressed dislike for particular ethnicities and/or superiority of their ancestry through prejudices or their ‘purity’. Upon receiving the tests back most of the participants were shocked humbled to find how mixed their ancestry actually was. Although the ethnicity testing was critiqued amongst people in the field of DNA testing, the point was to depict how we are not as far away or unrelated to one another as we like to think! As Canclini stated “We can chose to live in a state of war or in a state of hybridisation” (xxxi). So, we must chose to embrace the overlaps between cultures, people, societies or we must be in constant collision, fighting for what belongs to whom and not progressing together. But what can be lost and how do we respect the tragedies of the past?

In the context of humans as a whole, the rise of technology (from biological DNA testing to social media)  allows every one in the world to share and be connected on some level.  Globalisation has created a form of mass hybridity to a certain extent, yet we are all still grounded in our own differences –cultures and beliefs. This is particularly interesting to me as  it  is relevant in our ever-globalising world but at the same time, fundamental traditions/beliefs must still be treated with respect and not appropriated as a pseudo hybridisation or just lost.

This blog post is going to be super quick and casual due to a pile of homework and essay deadlines that are very quickly creeping up!

I found Beltran’s article really interesting because of the modern social struggles that are still at play to this day (although some of these issues are easy to miss). Body positivity is a huge area of discussion, and it’s still a topic of heavy controversy. According to the article, the superstar was very proud of the body she owned, and she showed it off as a kind of tribute to her heritage. However, Beltran notes that there are hardly any sources that really discuss her background/culture. In fact, within the English-language media, she is looked at as more of a symbol for sex and femininity and desire as opposed to a star of Puerto Rican descent. Through the manipulation of media, most Latin performers are limited to certain roles; these include highly sexual roles, comedic roles, or subservient roles. Though J-Lo received a huge amount of fame and admiration, for the most part it was not attributed to her role as an actress; rather it was attributed to the size of her butt. This underlines the strength of the racial hierarchy within America. Being confined to one specific trait results in a view in which Americans seem more “whole” than Latin Americans. In not emphasizing J-Lo’s heritage, the media successfully downplays her culture while simultaneously positioning the English-language community above hers; both “celebrating and objectifying difference”.

However, that is not to say that J-Lo’s butt is merely something to ogle at. Her obvious difference in body shape creates underlying tension between the bodily ideals of two different intermingling cultures. There seems to be a lack of a clear distinction between the Latin peoples and the American/Europeans. It can be argued that some values of Latin Americans do, in fact, dominate certain aspects of the broader culture of America. Beltran touches on the topic of sexual domination and its hidden role. Even looking at this specific topic is confusing – it can be seen positively (the more obvious route) or negatively in terms of it being “all-consuming” and almost “blame-worthy”. A woman’s body can be deemed as distracting and looked down upon for being so. Again, this is where we can see power plays at work, with one party position itself above another.

Obviously there are a multitude of debates that happen regarding body positivity and how it shapes our social systems. Many embrace the “natural” sexuality attributed to bodies, while others choose to engage in acts that attempt to desexualize the natural body. There may never be a correct answer to such a topic but learning about how it intertwines with a cultural aspect definitely made this an interesting read.

I think that I like the idea of hybridity better than the other theories of mixture we’ve looked at so far. By that I mean my understanding of hybridity is that it’s a positive and pretty much inclusive way of viewing culture as a process of constant creation rather than some totally pure and tangible thing which must be preserved (fetishized.) More and more so culture is becoming a highly specific process of self-construction (cus intronet and endless choices and stuff) and so to epitomize any group of people would be to ignore the multitude of variety within it.

I don’t think the mixing of cultures and people should be rationalized or romanticised like with the mestizaje reading, we shouldn’t view progressions of culture from some overreaching moralistic, deterministic framework. That would completely overlook the many human forces which have shaped the evolution of peoples and their cultures. On the other hand, while the term “transculturation” does help to make the distinction that rather than “acquiring” western culture, many cultures were subject to the suppression of colonial rule it does not endeavor to describe the new products of these interactions and what has been created through hybridity, rather only (the imaginary of) what was “lost.” We have seen through the many different conceptions of “popular culture” in history that they often still rely on the same hierarchies of race, class, gender as well as an opposition to something else- a notion of us and then the outsiders. This makes “it” (the people, popular, culture all that stuff we haven’t stopped talking about) vulnerable to manipulation often of the ideological sort. In fact by confining any given group of people to symbols or signs which embody their “true” “essential” culture you are falling into the rhetoric of “make *BLANK* great again.” Xenophobia has many faces- from the cultural snobs at the Oxford tea shop, to Evita Peron’s affective paranoia, to the “wall-building” orange man who shall not be named. All of these examples have utilize the idea of cultural purity (which does not, and can not, exist) to manipulate people into fear and violence. It seems to me that if we all started viewing the world as a hybrid (and maybe also started driving hybrid cars) it would be a much better place.

I think that I like the idea of hybridity better than the other theories of mixture we’ve looked at so far. By that I mean my understanding of hybridity is that it’s a positive and pretty much inclusive way of viewing culture as a process of constant creation rather than some totally pure and tangible thing which must be preserved (fetishized.) More and more so culture is becoming a highly specific process of self-construction (cus intronet and endless choices and stuff) and so to epitomize any group of people would be to ignore the multitude of variety within it.

I don’t think the mixing of cultures and people should be rationalized or romanticised like with the mestizaje reading, we shouldn’t view progressions of culture from some overreaching moralistic, deterministic framework. That would completely overlook the many human forces which have shaped the evolution of peoples and their cultures. On the other hand, while the term “transculturation” does help to make the distinction that rather than “acquiring” western culture, many cultures were subject to the suppression of colonial rule it does not endeavor to describe the new products of these interactions and what has been created through hybridity, rather only (the imaginary of) what was “lost.” We have seen through the many different conceptions of “popular culture” in history that they often still rely on the same hierarchies of race, class, gender as well as an opposition to something else- a notion of us and then the outsiders. This makes “it” (the people, popular, culture all that stuff we haven’t stopped talking about) vulnerable to manipulation often of the ideological sort. In fact by confining any given group of people to symbols or signs which embody their “true” “essential” culture you are falling into the rhetoric of “make *BLANK* great again.” Xenophobia has many faces- from the cultural snobs at the Oxford tea shop, to Evita Peron’s affective paranoia, to the “wall-building” orange man who shall not be named. All of these examples have utilize the idea of cultural purity (which does not, and can not, exist) to manipulate people into fear and violence. It seems to me that if we all started viewing the world as a hybrid (and maybe also started driving hybrid cars) it would be a much better place.

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.

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.