There is a short section in the Kraidy reading (p. 65-67) which I found to be really interesting, and that is the idea of anti-hybridity. Haters of hybridity critique the term, calling it neo-colonial, useless, and “academic nonsense, at worst as a pernicious affirmation of hegemonic power” (66). Believers in anti-hybridity state that all cultures are and always have been hybrid. Pure cultures are a myth, and therefore hybridity as a concept is meaningless. Anti-hybriditers also attack the fluidity of the term, stating “when a concept means so many different things to so many different people in so many different fields and so many different contexts, it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever” (66). The hybridity bullying doesn’t stop there – it’s also accused of being a term used to by émigré intellectuals who just love fancy theorizing (who doesn’t?!).
I have to say, the hybridity haters do bring up a number of interesting points. To a certain extent, the concept of hybridity needs to be roughed up a little, primarily to test its strength of character and to determine whether or not it firmly has its feet on the ground. Hybridity as a concept needs to be unpacked, and its links to hegemony, fancy theorizing and the Western world need to be explored more in depth.
However, I disagree with certain aspects of anti-hybridity. The claim that “when a concept means so many different things to so many different people in so many different fields and so many different contexts, it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever” is far too dismissive. The sheer pervasiveness of the term AND its variety of different meanings deem it all the more worthy of study. Based on this short reading, it is apparent that anti-hybriditers also fail to consider the history of culture. While cultures may in fact have never been “pure”, as they suggest, in many circles cultures are absolutely believed to have been pure. As we know, ideologies and beliefs have material consequences that cannot be ignored with respect to this study of history. Furthermore, the very word “hybridity” and “multiculturalism” further enforce the idea of once existing pure cultures.
While the anti-hybridity side does a good job of attacking the concept of hybridity, like all bullies it needs to take a good hard look in the mirror and reassess its arguments. But hybridity, you’re not as innocent as you look either, so watch your back.
I know I love fancy theorizing. I think it is interesting that some people refuse to accept the hybridity of most Western nations. Canadians who are not natives, have colonized and settled here- as immigrants... Therefore, modern Canada is a hybrid whether we like it or not.
ReplyDeleteTaryn, I love your title! It caught my attention immediately and I felt I had to read your post 0 and I'm glad I did! You bring to a light a lot of important concerns of anti-hybriditers, which I also find intriguing. I find myself agreeing with the fact that the term need not exist because cultures have never been pure and have always been a mixture/hybrid of cultures. However, I also agree with you that the statement about a term's definition always changing warrants more attention and not less. I think it is important to recognize the pros and cons of terms when applying them, and now that I think I will use this term for my final paper, I will try to unpack this term and the arguments of supporters and critics to ensure I present an unbiased look at the term.
ReplyDelete