Hybridity

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.

Hybridity

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.

Hybrid Cultures – Canclini

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.

Hybrid Cultures – Canclini

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.

Hybrid Cultures

I didn’t get to read the whole thing, but got through most of the introduction- here are a few of my thoughts! I liked Canclini’s focus on the processes of hybridization over hybridity as a useful tool for thinking about the mixture of cultures. Looking at ‘processes’ of hybridization over the sealed off concept of hybridity implies that there are many ways this is expressed and many ways people willingly or unwillingly participate or resist processes of cultural mixture. To me, it’s similar to the difference between transculturation and mestizaje- one (hybridity and mestizaje) is too simple or limited and overlooks different structures of power and the contexts in which these mixtures occur and ( like we discussed in class and as Canclini mentions) is almost too optimistic or “overly pleasant” -skimming over the conflicts that exist in these different contexts. I’ll try and add more as I read more… just a little tidbit for now!

Canclini reading

From the introduction, I was reminded a lot of Roger Keesing’s “Theories of Culture Revisited” in that hybridization could provide an angle through which anthropologists could still maintain their field of study.  Canclini describes that “The emphasis on hybridization not only puts an end to the pretense of establishing ‘pure’ or ‘authentic’ identities; in addition, it demonstrates the risk of delimiting local, self-contained identities or those that attempt to assert themselves as radically opposed to national society or globalization” (xxviii).  In this way, hybridization deals with both the issue of the coral reef approach to cultural identity as well as the concept of radical alterity that Keesing was concerned with.

The concept of “audiovisual democracy” from page 211 resonated with me.  Canclini defines audiovisual democracy as a phenomenon in which “the real is produced by the images created in the media” (211).  In the reading, Canclini uses the term in the context of electronic technologies stepping in to take the place of what he calls “urban culture,” which is created by direct in-person interactions.  He explains that “mass mediatization” (209) represents a more efficient way of organizing the public than these interactions since it allows information to be spread to from urban to rural areas (and potentially vice versa) through the television.  This causes a shift in individuals’ perceptions of reality from something to take part in and experience firsthand, to something that is to be received.  Reality thus becomes defined as something made up by public opinion polls, and “the citizen becomes a client, a ‘public consumer'” (211).

I can see two very clear applications of this phenomenon of audiovisual democracy today.  The first is in the public opinion polls during the 2016 American election.  Many public opinion polls predicted that Hillary Clinton would win.  Reports of these statistics circulated heavily on television and in the echo chambers of social media to people who wanted to hear such statistics, thus creating an illusory reality in the mind of many Americans that Clinton’s prospects were better than they really were.  Donald Trump’s election then came as a massive shattering of “reality” (granted, Clinton did win the popular vote but her lead was not significant enough to match perceptions created by polls).  The second relevant application of audiovisual democracy I see is in climate change denial.  I learned in one of my classes this past week that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming exists and that humans are the cause of accelerated warming.  Of the 3% that disagree, 2.8% disagree with the clause that humans are the cause of accelerated warming (not with the phenomenon of global warming itself).  But due to the proliferation of political rhetoric in the media, only 47% of Americans perceive that there is consensus in the scientific community on the existence of climate change.  Both of these examples demonstrate that when the citizen is turned into a mere consumer, the media is granted reign over what is reality (kind of scary!!!).

 

Response to Theories of Mixture III: Hybridity

Hybridization describes the cultural mixing that occurs in Latin America, and that process is a result of modernization. Latin America remains inundated with new influences as development spurs global communication and urbanization creates more space for people to access the global market. Hybridization started and created mestizaje, but the process continues and there are still more influencers being introduced. As Latin America becomes more modern, it gains more access to the global community. It is a beneficial relationship (i.e. Latin America and the global community’s relationship) because it means more access to information, technology, and goods. In some ways this improves the national market and provides locals with more resources, and in other ways this globalization can exacerbate the pre-existing inequalities and chip away at the local culture.

The global market means access to cheaper goods, which takes money away from locally sourced products. It also motivates people to become part of a “global culture”, and buy into what is popular and “cool” at that time. That can be disastrous to the local culture because it will be pushed to the side so that locals can accept global standards, practices, and ideas. In other words, globalization has its benefits, but it has a darker side. The increasing number of opportunities is supportive of this process, but it also creates the commodification of local cultures. When mass production demands for mass consumption, everything becomes something that can be sold. Culture and local experiences become commodities to sell, and slogans to increase the number of tourists.

So is hybridization good or bad? The term itself seems to be more fitting, in that it captures the modern patterns of acculturation and transculturation. Heterogeneity seems to be unavoidable, as corporations seek to expand and modernization grows to more areas. Hybridization might create a scientific frame through which to understand the transformation of Latin American culture; the article mentions that urbanization intensifies cultural hybridization. That urbanization means that the international community also access into these different ways of thinking and being. Previously sheltered communities are becoming easier to access and learn about, as such it becomes easier for these cultures to interact with and pick up traits from other cultures. On the one hand that might mean that certain cultures become more open and tolerant, but it is also means the deterioration of the places that we considered exotic. And if our wish for the “exotic” becomes a never-ending practice then everything community will be forced to open up, and nothing will ever be unique as it used to be.

The last thought I have is whether hybridization, globalization, and modernization should be celebrated. The good that it does is unavoidable, but there is a question that is left to answer: how much do damage do these processes inflict?

Response to Theories of Mixture III: Hybridity

Hybridization describes the cultural mixing that occurs in Latin America, and that process is a result of modernization. Latin America remains inundated with new influences as development spurs global communication and urbanization creates more space for people to access the global market. Hybridization started and created mestizaje, but the process continues and there are still more influencers being introduced. As Latin America becomes more modern, it gains more access to the global community. It is a beneficial relationship (i.e. Latin America and the global community’s relationship) because it means more access to information, technology, and goods. In some ways this improves the national market and provides locals with more resources, and in other ways this globalization can exacerbate the pre-existing inequalities and chip away at the local culture.

The global market means access to cheaper goods, which takes money away from locally sourced products. It also motivates people to become part of a “global culture”, and buy into what is popular and “cool” at that time. That can be disastrous to the local culture because it will be pushed to the side so that locals can accept global standards, practices, and ideas. In other words, globalization has its benefits, but it has a darker side. The increasing number of opportunities is supportive of this process, but it also creates the commodification of local cultures. When mass production demands for mass consumption, everything becomes something that can be sold. Culture and local experiences become commodities to sell, and slogans to increase the number of tourists.

So is hybridization good or bad? The term itself seems to be more fitting, in that it captures the modern patterns of acculturation and transculturation. Heterogeneity seems to be unavoidable, as corporations seek to expand and modernization grows to more areas. Hybridization might create a scientific frame through which to understand the transformation of Latin American culture; the article mentions that urbanization intensifies cultural hybridization. That urbanization means that the international community also access into these different ways of thinking and being. Previously sheltered communities are becoming easier to access and learn about, as such it becomes easier for these cultures to interact with and pick up traits from other cultures. On the one hand that might mean that certain cultures become more open and tolerant, but it is also means the deterioration of the places that we considered exotic. And if our wish for the “exotic” becomes a never-ending practice then everything community will be forced to open up, and nothing will ever be unique as it used to be.

The last thought I have is whether hybridization, globalization, and modernization should be celebrated. The good that it does is unavoidable, but there is a question that is left to answer: how much do damage do these processes inflict?

Reaction to Hybridity reading

I explain in this blog my reaction to the readings of the week: two extracts from Néstor García Canclini ‘s Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity.

A thought I found interesting in the introduction is the fact that we have to nuance the idea of hybridization when it is understood as a fusion of two cultures. First of all, the idea of a peaceful fusion is too optimistic, in most cases hybridity is in fact a form of violence and of conflict. This is why names such as syncretism, mestizaje and creolization allow to describe more specifically the kind of process involved. Secondly, as the author takes the example of the hybrid language called Spanglish, we can say that the two components mixed in the process (here, English and Spanish) are pure themselves: each culture is itself the result of past hybridizations, and the idea of pure, absolute essence of one culture is in fact a biased vision of the process, when one observes the culture at a precise moment in time. The author suggests that better understanding the process of hybridization is a way to relativize conflicts between cultures, and to prevent conflicts predicted by Samuel Huntington in Clash of Civilizations.

With globalization, increased economic exchanges and economic segregations imply more phenomena of hybridization but with newer conditions. For instance, in Latin America, Spanish investments are considerably increasing, which represent both an opportunity and a challenge for Latin American culture to express itself. This doesn’t mean global and national cannot be reconciled: the process of glocalization hopefully manages to do it.

The chapter 7 lists several ways in which modernity challenges the way to see culture. It addresses urban culture in Latin America, evolving with the political situation (dictatorship, populism…), with globalization, with social protests,… “New” technologies (the author writes in the 1990s) endanger the very idea of collection (precious, unique, physical items). Deterritorialization and reterritorialization are other new processes that heavily modify the traditional way to perceive culture in Latin America, as some places lose a cultural trait that was attached to them or regain it or gain a new one (such as the maquiladoras along the border between the Mexico and the US). And even Latin American comic strips can now tackle with humor social problems.

Response to Hybridity

 

The last “Theory of Mixture”, hybridity. I always thought that we talked about hybridity because in my notes, hybridity meant the combining of two cultures. However, it might have just been me taking the wrong notes. Anyways, I do know that hybridity is something we’ve talked periodically in class. Rowe and Schelling talked about it in “The Faces of Popular Culture”, Mark Millington talked about it in “Transculturation: Contrapuntal Notes to Critical Orthodoxy” and now we have Nestor Garcia Canclini talk about it in “Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity.”

In “Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving Modernity”, Nestor Garcia Canclini unpacks the meaning behind the hefty word, hybridization. The reason why hybridization is heavy is because people group everything that involves mixing under the umbrella of hybridization. That is why some authors warned about grouping everything under one term. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that hybridity is not limited to the biological dynamics from which the concept is derived from. In the article, Nestor talks about how hybridity at times occurs in an unplanned manner or is the unforeseen result of processes of migration, tourism, and economic or communicational exchange. However, he notes that hybridity often emerges from individual and collective creativity. Either through the arts or technological development in everyday life. Nestor further explains this by saying hybridization is a way “one seeks to reconvert a heritage or resource in order to reintegrate it to new conditions of production and distribution.” I found this definition to be particularly true because in my view, hybrids exist to be something better than the original. For example, hybrid cars are meant to be more fuel efficient than normal gasoline cars, hybrid fruits are made to be more fresh and better tasting than the original.

I haven’t gotten a chance to read the entire article yet but these are my two cents. It was definitely an engaging article and it did demystify the difference between hybridity and hybridization.