The more sensitive side of cultural hybridity?!

As researchers we often fall into the belief and practice of viewing concepts as detached from the people they define. The truth is cultural hybridity is not merely a term, it is the definition of many members of our societies. So why the question of hybridity, at times positive, and at others, negative?

Integrating into a new culture requires a great degree of adaptation; even more so, maintaining the hybridity requires an excessive amount of courage. As researcher, Brene Brown asserts, courage comes from the Latin cuore, which is the meaning for heart and refers to the telling of the story of who you are with the whole heart. Often times the stories of migration are hidden away. The choice of individuals to not integrate into the specific culture may be due to fears of rejection: “the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we are not worthy of connection. (Brene Brown)”

Brene Brown on Ted Talks on the Power of Vulnerability (a self-reflexive approach to research and vulnerability)

If people fail to open up and be themselves due to fears of rejection, from the predominant culture, the cultural hybridity is further nurtured and sustained.

Often times the solution to the livelihood within new cultures lies in the ability of the migrant people to maintain a close relationship with the homeland, a source of acceptance, and a sense of belonging which is often unmet in the adopted country.  Are we responsible for the undesirable aspects of cultural hybridity?

Connection, according to Brene Brown requires the willingness to let go of the attainable self and allow the real self to emerge. One must have the courage to be imperfect, to be compassionate to the self and to others. Brown states that there is beauty in vulnerability. Cultural hybridity provides distinction and beauty in an almost unique way and its exposure requires a form of vulnerability. Is cultural hybridity a choice? What role does the society of the specific country have in the integration of hybridity?

Furthermore, is this vulnerability what national identity should be based on? Looking at states that have embraced cultural hybridity as a necessary part of their identity, can it be said that cultural hybridity has been made possible through an incorporation of the willingness to let go of the ideal self and willingness to share the self without any guarantees? Has there been a better understanding of the joining hybrids thanks to the pre-existent ones? What effect does the existence of cultural hybrids have on the political life of a nation? Does cultural hybridity strengthen the identity of an individual or does it loosen it? Politically, can it be said that a country is stronger due to its ability to integrate cultural hybridity into its context, or is it merely dispersed into the various cultural mosaics? Does the cultural hybridity of a nation lead to a stronger ability to govern its people? Are subjects of cultural hybridity trapped into a game of identity-seeking?

There are various questions to be addressed, all sparked by a wonderful presentation on the power of vulnerability. Self-reflexiveness is necessary in research to assess the transformations experienced by a culture; vulnerability is necessary for the integration of the self into the cultural frame, and research is more lively and humanistic than often assumed. Concepts are not mere concepts and realities are not mere descriptions of situations. Where are we headed? As a product of cultural hybridity I often wonder about this. Perhaps time will tell. I may never be an integral part of the scape I have adopted, or I may be absorbed in the tumult of “tamed hybrids”.  Think twice before labeling, it can hurt, or it can overjoy!