Emergent Change Versus Hybridization If the definition of hybridization is too broad, then all cultures are constantly

hybridizing, mixing, changing if you will. But as I have previously discussed, complexity theory offers two types of change, only one of which results in hybridization. The first kind of change is emergent, the cyclical change inher

ent in any patterned system (Urry, 2003). The summer weather outside the window as I write this chapter is changing. There is a breeze and a few clouds.

Perhaps there will be a shower tonight, but tomorrow, the sky will be blue again. All cultural systems are changing, emergent as well. But hybridization requires a higher order of change. Over time, events occur to shift the overall pattern of the weather, to move from warming to cooling, from tropical times to the ice age. But occasionally there is a cataclysm where a volcano erupts, sending ash into the atmosphere and drastically reducing the amount of light that comes into the lower atmosphere, causing the known weather pattern to

Hybridization and the Roots of Markets 41

In culture, events such a s the landing of Columbus, the proliferation of television, or the spread of commercial television systems create cataclysmic or sudden and dramatic change. When the change occurs at a system level as

a result of the clash of two strong patterns, then a hybrid pattern that con tains key elements of the previous patterns often emerges. Complex hybridization seems to have accelerated in the 20th century with postcolonial migrations, increased travel, transnational mass media, and economic globalization. A number of current theorists, particularly those,

like Bhabha ( 1994), whose personal or family history centers on postcolo nial migrations, focus on the postcolonial period as the critical period of hybridity. Canclini ( 1 997), for instance, questions whether some of Bhabha's

work can be applied to Latin America because it focuses too much on post colonial as opposed to colonial era hybridity. The kind of hybridity under discussion is important because different kinds relate to very different

political-economic structures of colonialism, postcolonial migration, and globalization.

As epochs in hybridization, the colonial era, the era of postcolonial migra tions, the era of mass media, and the era of economic globalization are all important. Not every country experienced a deep form of 9ybridization

with colonialism or postcolonial migration. With mass media and economic globalization, however, almost all countries are caught up in some type of increased cultural contact, resulting in some degree of hybridization. By many accounts, the dominant form of increased cultural contact has been mass media, both national and international.

Bhabha ( 1 994) noted that "the very concepts of homogenous national cultures, the consensual or contiguous transmission of historical traditions, or 'organic' ethnic communities . . . are in a profound process of redefini tion" (p. 5). As an explanation, he observed a set of forces that seem to affect many countries in this century.

For the demography of the new internationalism is the history of postcolonial migration, the narratives of cultural and political diaspora, the major social

displacements of peasant and aboriginal communities, the poetics of exile, the grim prose of political and economic refugees. (p. 5)

Hybridity and Television One form of hybridization takes place in the production of cultural products

such as television. Formats are commonly copied and adapted. The North American soap opera format was introduced into Cuba and other countries

42 Chapter 2 Kraidy (2005) uses the example of Mexican television producers who

created their own version of the Teletubbies called Tele Chobbies because another network already had the license to import the original series. Such adaptation is discussed more extensively in Chapters 7 and 8.

Another form of hybridity takes place in the consumption or configura tion of culture by audiences. Canclini ( 1995) noted that consumption is the appropriation of products; it is more than passive reception or consumerism. Consumption, as a form of hybridity, represents a struggle for meanings between classes within countries, between high and popular cultures, and between local, national, and imported cultural traditions. This is parallel

to the type of active meaning construction that Fiske and others describe among television audiences in developed countries (Curran, 1 990; Fiske,

1 987). As Ricoeur (1984) observed, this kind of active reception or configu ration of culture by audiences feeds back into the collective culture, in what

he called reconfiguration, so that meanings made by audiences become part of the cultural context for the next round of television production. Canclini ( 1995) pointed out that hybrid cultural products resulting from the rearticulation of popular or folk traditions within transnational compa nies or markets actually serve to expand overall consumption of goods and cultural products. Kraidy (2005) saw such deliberate corporate transcultur

ation as increasingly common and warned researchers to be cautious about accepting it as part of a normalized cultural process. Thus, modernization and even internationalization of local and national markets does not inter

fere with and may even serve the interests of transnational capital. To some critics, this is another damning characteristic of cultural hybridization: that it takes place within an increasingly commercialized context, often no lon ger under full national control (Oliveira, 1 993). Certainly, the growth of a transnational, even global form of cultural production, in which television is commercially based, created via privately owned networks, and oriented toward mass audiences, creates a pattern of economic boundary conditions that will limit to some substantial degree what can be produced. It will also tend to promote consumerism in audiences (Canclini, 2001).

Emergent Change Versus Hybridization If the definition of hybridization is too broad, then all cultures are constantly