Hybridity+in+Cultural+Globalization

Hybridity as ethnic “contamination (319) Hybridity as ethic mixing to forge new national identity i.e. mestizaje (319) positive connotation Hybridity as the “subversion and re-appropriation” of dominant discourses by previously dominated communities (320)  “Politically, a critical hybridity theory considers hybridity as a space where intercultural and international communication practices are continuously negotiated in interactions of differential power. References to cultural mixture as resistance to domination have appeared in writings critical of cultural imperialism as an international communication paradigm.”  § Because theories of hybridity are pervasive, they are useless (322)  o “creolisation, //métissage//, //mestizaje//, and hybridity” are “rather unsatisfactory ways of naming the processes of cultural mutation and restless (dis)continuity that exceed racial discourse and avoid capture by its agents” (322)  § hybridity represents “a form of self indulgence by diasporic intellectuals who have the cultural and economic resources that allow them to spend time and effort theorizing.” (322)  o it is not however, clear, what this intellectual diaspora entails.  § Hybridity does not address problems of class exploitation or racist oppression  § Hybridity (and as a consequence, multiculturalism) is seen as a tool to minimize difference in ways the benefit power holders (323) <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;"> <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Central questions <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">How does the production of hybridity in the //Washington Post// series frame cultural globalization? Do the stories account for the ways in which the global political and economic power structures influence hybrid formations? Or does the //Washington Post//’s production of hybridity justify imbalanced cultural relations, consisting of what Spivak (1999) called “hybridist post-national talk, celebrating globalization as Americanization” (p. 361)? <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;"> <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">In his analysis of the WAPO series, he presents the hybrid discourse relationships hegemonic and as an example of cultural imperialism. <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;"> <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Is there agency? <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">According to Kraidy, the discourse surrounding the exportation of US popular culture implies and agency among its non-US audiences in creating hybridity, but also denies it through their inability to avoid its influences. Similarly, Global markets “constrain” US film houses from making ethnic films (agency of foreign market in influencing US products), yet film imagery can reinforce U.S. hegemonic political dominance (i.e. Armageddon p 239). <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;"> <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Discussion question: <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Should “multiculturalism could be exported multiculturally” (330)? <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Is there an inherent problem with the globalization of culture? Or globalization more broadly? Afterall, foreign cultures have tremendous impact on U.S. language, cuisine and culture also, just perhaps not on our power structures. Or do they? (immigration comes to mind) ||
 * =Title= || Hybridity in Cultural Globalization ||
 * =Author= || Marwan Kraidy ||
 * =Date= || 2002 ||
 * =Summary (Tatiana)= || ** <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Definition of hybridity? **
 * <span style="font-family: Sabon-Roman,serif; font-size: 11pt;">Critiquing theories of hybridity **
 * =Summary (Namalie)= || ** Summary ** : Kraidy critically deconstructs the concept of “hybridity” through an analysis of articles from the //Washington Post//.

· Hybridity needs to be incorporated into communication theory, not just descriptively, but should also be understood as a “communicative practice constitutive of, and constituted by, sociopolitical and economic arrangements” (317). · Hybridity recognizes that “transcultural relations are complex, processual and dynamic” (317). · Critical hybridity theory: “hybridity as a space where intercultural and international communication practices are continuously negotiated in interactions of differential power” (317). ** Hybridity, //Washington Post// and “American Popular Culture Abroad” ** · The //Washington// Post articles create a picture of American pop culture as benchmark for the rest of the word, where other countries, particularly developing countries try to “shed their allegedly unsophisticated tastes as they attempt to emulate the cultural sensibilities of American audiences” (327) · According to the //Washington Post//, “hybridity is seen as a capitulation to the seduction of otherness and not as a mutation and renewal of identity” (331) · Kraidy finds it helpful to theorize hybridity as an “undecidable” (Derrida) – defined as “that which no longer allows itself to be understood within binary opposition, but which inhabits it, resists it and disorganizes it, but //without ever// constituting a third term, without ever leaving room for a solution” (332) · Under the concept of hybridity, the //Washington Post// articles “justify a transnational cultural hegemony made possible by power asymmetries” (334)
 * Hybridity Defined **

** Intecontextuality – Hybridity and Power ** · Kraidy believes that the best way to understand hybridity and power is through intercontextuality, a term created by Appadurai. · Intercontextuality allows us to “understand text and context to be mutually constitutive in a field of not necessarily correspondent power/signification” (333) · An intercontextual theory of hybridity “helps us illuminate the slippery and interstitial workings of power in transnational contexts that ostensibly declare themselves nonpower zones of cultural mixture” (335) || · According to this article, hybridity is a recent subject of international communication studies. In what other areas do you think hybridity would be a useful concept? · Hybridity has been criticized as being so pervasive that it has become theoretically useless, that is a self-indulgent act by diasporic intellectuals and that it is just a strategy of cooptation used to neutralize difference. Do you believe Kraidy was able to resolve these problems? || = = = = = = = = = = = =
 * =Discussion points= || Namalie:

= = = = = = = =

= =