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 love melodramatic trash TV (not necessarily saying telenovelas are trash, they sound like quite the opposite but don’t worry i will get to that ) and not in some ironic way (still seriously don’t get how it’s possible to like something genuinely and ironically?) I truly truly love it (the good trash that is.) I think everybody does to some degree (this may be my bitterness speaking but I feel as though “male” targeted trash programming is less villified/condemned than it’s “female” targeted counterparts…looking at you “history channel” you are in no way superior to Kardashianess ) there are elements of melodrama in almost all modern modes of communication from what we read in magazines, see on the news or even project with our internet “selves.” I moved to the U.S. when I was 8 and went from a tiny town with one elementary school of like 50 children straight into a giant “middle school” and more importantly into the world of television, which I only ever saw movies/cartoons/news on before (cus my cheepo parents refused to pay for things like cable and air-conditioning and still do.) My older sister and I both became obsessed with our tv because a) we had no friends after moving b) there was so much yet to be discovered on that thing c) it was all so over the top and ridiculous and exciting. Also we had our own “play room” in the basement where we could vegetate in front of our disturbing programming undisturbed by our parents and quickly hit the “last channel” button whenever we heard their footsteps down the stairs. So with one small change in circumstance my sister and i went from arguing over which one of us was D.W. and which one was Arthur to contemplating “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila” (a google search will tell you what you need to know, the shame still haunts me.) Also we would watch reruns of american sitcoms that we didn’t even know existed before moving because most were canceled before we were born like “full house” “sister, sister” “family matters” “7th Heaven” etc, all equally awful and cheesy but it was on this very rerun channel where I first encountered soap operas and on occasion, telenovelas (which, upon reflection were probably but not certainly Mexican.)

There is something so distinct about the set/lighting/costumes/general aesthetic of these programs which makes them easily recognizable as their genre. Maybe it has to do with the powder-coloured extravagant interiors with lace curtains, high ceilings and candelabras- the obvious artificiality which provides a perfect backdrop for the very realistic elevated emotional rollercoaster which is the dialogue. Also this may be inappropriate and a mere matter of preference but I have always found the female protagonists of telenovelas to be more beautiful/better actors than in English soap operas, or at the very least better at delivering a convincing portrayal of dialogue (that i don’t even understand) and vivid emotion. Though I can’t say I ever stuck around long enough to consume a full telenovela (or that I ever knew what was going on) they are certainly visually superior to American/British soap operas. Also, interesting to note the difference between the content of “soaps” in individualist, money hungry societies, such as ours tend to focus more on business, scandal, prestige, and opulence i.e. issues of REPUTATION where the Latin American versions seem more concerned with familial dynamics and private as opposed to public forms of betrayal i.e. issues of COMMUNITY. The genre itself seems to be refined to perfection by its Latin American incarnation. They are proliferated through time by their ability to represent different kinds of people and “bridge the gap” of opera and drama portraying only the upper classes this “insists on the importance of the ordinary” – melordrama. The english name of the genre would imply this is it’s entire aim- Opera being a form of “high culture” with many conventions going along with the title, soap implying that it is being brought down to the common level (and also referencing it’s female audience) and should be consumed by everyone. Both high and low- another example of “mixture” at work! I was also really intrigued by the tropes we think of like inter-family drama and extra marital affairs being placed alongside traditional myths, stories and songs- wow, much mixture, very cool! Issues of representation are important, and the bad behaviour of only rich and untouchable people being glamourized can get stale after too long, I think people really are interested in confronting depictions (however dramatic) of issues that are real to them as well as a variety of characters which may represent them or be relatable to them. The dependency of the structure of the program on the structure of it’s society (seen in the different carnations of telenovela for different countries) as well as the many genres inside the genre (Political, ecological etc) prove how far reaching this genre is within Latin America, and just how successful it is in reflecting an artificial yet tangible mirror of reality for people to relate to and possibly learn from. Also, it’s worth noting how American reality and sitcom tv could take a nod from telenovelas, i need better, more realistic trash to consume!

Sorry this is really late! I have been busy and kind of forgot but I’m still going to say some things

I think the issue both of these essays fundamentally try to solve or at least explore is the inability of a single word to describe ALL processes of cultural interaction- regardless of context- and I don’t think that can be done. I found Ortiz’ writing to be lovely for the most part he takes special care to detail the trauma and shock and suppression experienced by the native people of what is now Cuba and the African slaves uprooted to there. However, I think his advocation for the sufferings of different groups of people was ultimately futile. he basically just explains how vastly different the experiences of groups of people in Cuba are and why acculturation cannot encompass all of them and then replaced one catch all term with another. It is arguably better or “more attractive” like we discussed in class but is there a real solution or way to improve our specificity that we won’t disregard a history of dominance and imposition so vulgarly?

In his critique of Ortiz’ writing Millington explains why implementing an secondary term to describe the experiences of subaltern groups (victims of violence & oppression) vs. the experiences of those who are uprooted from an original culture in hope of seeking something better (and not to escape violence or oppression.) Not to mention, it cannot take into account the effects of the experience of the individual and the context which surrounds their transition from one cultural experience to another. He says:

“There has been some emphasis in recent discussions of transculturation on interaction, but I think that we need to be clear about what we take that term to mean, because interaction may not imply equality and mutuality. Influences may operate back and forth between cultures but be asymmetrical in quantity and quality, be highly imbalanced and still take place with well oiled efficiency. Above all, therefore, and recalling elements in Ortiz, we need to try to understand how these processes affect people’s lives and the social relations in which they live.” (267)

To conclude: the specific experience of the individual (on whichever side of the power structure they may lie) is transformed and continually influenced by forces of cultural “interaction” yes, but what we should focus on attempting to understand and describe is the forces of influence which have shaped and continue to shape their experience on a more individual level. Instead we tend to want to group people together and use words which can describe our “Globalized” world, but maybe in this instance that may be incredibly difficult. There are definitely patterns and similarities one can find in all groups of people and their daily lives but I think the urge to create one, or even 2, 3, terms to describe the relationships between cultures and on a micro level, people, is impossible but we will definitely keep trying, it’s what we do. What do you think?