Hybridization Hybridization was developed first as a theory applied to Latin America,

where the national populati0ns and cultures are almost all historically clear hybrids of indigenous, European, and African elements. These hybrid cultures built up from movements of people-the Iberian conquests, African slavery, and subsequent immigrations-that occurred before mass media

arrived, but hybridization as a model may help us understand cultural con tact via television and other media, as well.

One of the main theorists of hybridity, Canclini ( 1 997) noted, "I found this term better suited for grasping diverse intercultural mixtures than 'mestizaje,' which is limited to racial mixings, or 'syncretism,' which almost always refers

to religious combinations or to traditional symbolic movements" {pp. 22-23)

Hybridization and the Roots of Markets

He also considered traditional/modern and elite/popular/mass culture blends as more current aspects of hybridity. He thought that in many cases, both elites and masses are conscious agents of hybridity, blending "the desired moder nity" with "traditions they do not wish to cast away" (p. 23).

Another major theorist, Bhabha ( 1 990, 1 994) also saw hybridity as an active process in which cultures interact, transgress previous boundaries, and transform each other; people can work within borders and in in-between spaces to (re)assert their idea of their culture. Bhabha saw this process as complex and unpredictable, unequal but not exhibiting the classic domina tion of center over periphery, which he considered an overly simple binary. Compared to Canclini's focus on popular culture, Bhabha focused more on language and literature. He tended to think that critique and subversive use of language can effect change. Not surprisingly, critics accused him of ignor ing the realities of existing power differentials between cultures and nations (Dirlik, 1 994 ).

Bhabha emphasized the hybrid cultures created by migrants, often colonial subjects relocated back to the capitals of the colonial powers. In fact, critics of the area of postcolonial literary theory, where Bhabha is a central figure, thought the movement focused too much on migrant writers rather than on the production in the former colonial areas (Moore-Gilbert, 1 997). Others emphasized how those who remain in former colonies adapt to the 20th century penetration of their countries by media and the globalization of their economies. In this regard, the Latin American experience may be seen as a prototype of the current media aspects of hybridization. U.S. multinational corporations and U.S. mass media exports penetrated Latin America, starting in the 1920s and 1 930s and with increasing intensity, before they reached much of the rest of the world (Fejes, 1 980). As a result, Latin American cul tures began the media phase of hybridization earlier than the much of rest of the world, which noticed the U.S. outflow of culture primarily after the 1 950s (Smith, 1990). Kraidy (2005) and others particularly have warned that hybrid

forms of culture can easily be co-opted and commodified by what Kraidy called corporate transculturalism. He urged a more cautious and critical approach to analyzing and managing the process of hybridity.

Earlier media imperialism studies tended to see cultural hybridization as the linear imposition of the cultures of the strong on the weak, or of indus trial centers on less developed peripheries (Hamelink, 1 983; Schiller, 1 969). Canclini ( 1 997) moved away from what he called such "Manichean per spectives" toward an emphasis on "the reciprocal borrowings that take place in the midst of differences and inequalities" (p. 23) . He cited Stuart Hall to the effect that "the hegemony of the United States is not understandable solely as the elimination of difference, rather he observes, there are multiple

38 Chapter 2 ways that Latin American cultures can be 'repenetrated, absorbed, reshaped,

negotiated, without absolutely destroying what is specific and particular to them"' (Hall, 1991, pp. 28-29, cited in Canclini, 1997, p. 23). One of Canclini's major studies, for example, showed how traditional indigenous artisans in Mexico adapted pre-Colombian crafts and styles to modern Mexican and foreign tourist markets.

By incorporating contemporary scenes into the devils of Ocumicho and the amate paintings of Ameyaltepec, by learning English and traveling by air, or by using credit cards, they acquire the money that allows them to modernize their ancient traditions and ceremonies. (Canclini, 1 997, p. 24)

Some Latin American critics of hybridization have said that the type of modernization Canclini observed constitutes severe change in the culture and economy of the formerly traditional artisans, that fundamental continuities have been broken. This raises a key question, for hybridity is admittedly not preservation but clear change. For Canclini's artisans, their art is no longer pure or completely traditional, but is it any less authentic? Is an underlying continuity of culture that lasted for centuries now being broken by air travel, credit cards, modern tools, and media ? In other words, does the rapid recent push of all these new forces combine to create much stronger impacts on cul tures, impacts that might justify the labels or charges of cultural imperialism, homogenization, and destruction of traditional cultures?

Latin American cultural theorist Jesus Martfn-Barbero ( 1 993) preferred to use the term mestizaje for cultural as well as ethnic mixture, rather than the concept of hybridity. He emphasized that considerable authenticity and continuity tends to survive the encounter of traditional cultures with mod ernization. Using complexity theory terms, I would argue that such tradi tional artisans work within cultural and economic patterns that have been ruptured by modern economic forces or threshold conditions so that new pat terns emerge. However, these new patterns of working conditions do not blot out the culture of the artisans. Anthropological work has noted a tendency in cultures to maintain as much continuity as possible, to resist complete change by preserving much of old cultural patterns and fitting them into the changed

boundaries of their local economy, creating effectively a new wave or layer of patterns of hybridzation, where much of the old is still visible.

Hybridization is used to describe several kinds of cultural mixtures. Canclini and other Latin Americans have tended to focus on the intrinsic his torical hybridity of their cultures, which have been mixed since the Iberian conquests with several different ethnic stocks: Latin, indigenous, and African.

Hybridization and the Roots of Markets

This might be seen as a situation where hybridity is one of the results of the critical initial conditions for a culture, such as conquest, migration, enforced

immigration of slaves, religious change by conquest, and so on. In this form, new cultures are created from forced mixtures, such as mestizaje or the mix ture of races, characteristic of Latin America.

Many other cultures result from similar processes of conquest, migration, and mixture. Singapore, for example, would not exist in anything like its

current form without British colonization. The British deliberately created

a new port city and either brought people to it, such as South Asian traders and civil servants, or created free trade policies that brought others, such as Chinese, Malays, and Europeans, to create a multiethnic society. Such cases

are the clearest examples of hybridity-where hybridity is clearly visible at the origin of the current dominant cultural pattern.

However, another style of hybridization involves resistance to colo nialism. In this mode, much more of the original populations survive. Local power structures are not completely broken, whether among indigenous peoples or imported slaves. There is a great deal of cultural continuity. In fact, a kind of superficial hybridity may serve to mask underlying continu ity, so that overlays of adopted culture are seen, rather than true mixtures. In this mode, the inner core of traditional culture remains substantially intact. Scott ( 1999) described how subaltern, forcibly subordinated popula tions can resist cultural colonialization in often small, subtle ways, which he

viewed as hidden transcripts of discourse, backstage talk, and manipulative action that lulls the colonizers into thinking they have imposed their own culture, when the original local culture may be simply hiding to survive. I will discuss this later as one of the bases for multiple layers of identity and culture that often emerge in hybrid cultures, where instead of a genuine hybrid blend of cultures, much of the original indigenous culture survives, hidden by masks of superficial hybridity.

One example might be India, where many aspects of education, govern ment, bureaucratic organization, and the language of elites changed with English colonialism, but others--class and caste structure, religion, popular culture (as opposed to elite culture), material culture such as cooking, and vernacular home languages-showed considerable continuity (Appadurai,

1 9 8 8 ) . For South Asian theorists of hybridity, such as Homi Bhabha ( 1 990,

1 994), the concept is useful for this situation, where the continuity of Indian cultures is not so completely broken by English colonialism but where the effects are still deep. Bhabha looked to see what kind of litera ture and other culture comes out of the postcolonial blend of British and Indian elements.

40 Chapter 2

In another style or mode of hybridity, often attributed to Japan and the United States, dominant cultures incorporate the other without breaking their own continuity. They incorporate or appropriate cultures from minori ties and immigrants, as when the dominant U.S. Anglo culture absorbs other

elements, such as African music rhythms. The incorporation of foreign cultures is often selective, as when Japan absorbs elements from China, Western Europe, or the United States.

At the other extreme, many very vulnerable cultures absorb flows and restructuring without much control or ability to resist. In many cultures, for example, the structures of the capitalist economy change the material bases for local cultural production and labor and class relations. Such cultures are vulnerable to media flows, immigration inflows, and religious or ideological movements. Their local languages are overtaken by outside languages, usually national languages of unification (and broadcasting). Some cultures simply break under such strain, resulting in the ongoing extinction of dozens

of small languages and cultures. Overall, there appear to be two dominant forms of what might be termed hybridity: ( 1 ) a genuinely new mixture and (2) relations between multiple layers of culture. Both forms come from a process of hybridization that includes flows and encounters of peoples. The interpenetration of cultures results, and multiple layers form, resulting in resistance or in mixture (forced, voluntary, or selective). Key elements of those hybridizations include popula tions, racial or ethnic groups, religions and value systems, languages, social classes, and forms of political economy.

Hybridization Hybridization was developed first as a theory applied to Latin America,