Cultural Studies assignment

Name: Prakruti Bhatt

Roll Number: 25

Subject: Cultural Studies

Topic: Diaspora and Cultural Hybridity

Abstract: Diaspora life and literature becomes an interesting study under cultural studies. Not only is it a field for understanding identity politics and post modern life but also is identified by a deep discourse on what does the ‘sense of belongingness’ mean in human life. On the other hand, Cultural Hybridity is equally an important aspect while understanding the dynamics of identity in a cross cultural set up. These concepts also play a significant role in analyzing larger structures like globalization. The aim of this assignment therefore, is to have a brief understanding of these two concepts and their relevance and significance in cultural studies.

What is Cultural Hybridity?

“Hybrid talk, the rhetoric of hybridity, is fundamentally associated with the emergence of post-colonial discourse and its critiques of cultural imperialism. It is the second stage in the history of hybridity, characterized by literature and theory that study the effects of mixture (hybridity) upon identity and culture. The principal theorists of hybridity are Homi Bhabha, Néstor García Canclini, Stuart Hall, Gayatri Spivak, and Paul Gilroy, whose works respond to the multi-cultural awareness that emerged in the early 1990s. In the theoretic development of hybridity, the key text is The Location of Culture (1994), by Homi Bhabha, wherein the liminality of hybridity is presented as a paradigm of colonial anxiety. The principal proposition is the hybridity of colonial identity, which, as a cultural form, made the colonial masters ambivalent, and, as such, altered the authority of power; as such, Bhabha's arguments are important to the conceptual discussion of hybridity. Hybridity demonstrates how cultures come to be represented by processes of iteration and translation through which their meanings are vicariously addressed to—through—an Other. This contrasts any “essentialist claims for the inherent authenticity or purity of cultures which, when inscribed in the naturalistic sign of symbolic consciousness frequently become political arguments for the hierarchy and ascendary of powerful cultures.” This also means that the colonial subject takes place, its subaltern position inscribed in that space of iteration.” (Contributors)

“Cultural hybridity constitutes the effort to maintain a sense of balance among practices, values, and customs of two or more different cultures. In cultural hybridization, one constructs a new identity that reflects a dual sense of being, which resides both within and beyond the margins of nationality, race, ethnicity, class, and linguistic diversity. Many immigrants, for instance, face this process as they attempt to accommodate new environments and experiences, while holding on to their indigenous sociocultural principles or beliefs. An important resource is language, which may be used to construct an identity, to adapt to new cultural environments, and to make sense of new experiences or some combination of these features.” (Paez)

“Contemporary postmodern and post-colonial studies on hybridity regard this concept as an indicator that current practices of identity need to be conceptualized in a manner that refutes essentialist portrayals of the ways in which individuals, groups, and collectivities locate themselves. Moreover, there are other meaning associated with hybridity. For instance, in cultural studies, hybridity denotes a wide register of multiple identity, cross-over, pick-‘n’-mix, boundary-crossing experiences and styles, matching a world of growing migration and diaspora lives, intensive intercultural communication, everyday multiculturalism and erosion of boundaries (Pieterse, 2001:221) For some cultural theorists, hybridity represents a constant process of translation and interpenetration between cultures and identities (Anthias, 2001: 625). For others, it represents more than that; it signifies the inherently trans-gressive potential of the colonial subject in the face of the expression of Colonial power. For Bhabha (1998) hybridity takes place in conditions of inequality, during the attempted imposition of culturally hegemonic practices (quoted by Grabham 2006). Moreover, Hybridity happens at the point at which colonial authority fails to fix the colonial subject in its gaze. It denotes the equivocal space that the colonial subject occupies; a space neither of assimilation nor of collaboration. Furthermore, it is argue by Bhabha (1994) that hybridity “unsettles the mimetic or narcissistic demands of colonial power but re-implicates its identifications in strategies of subversion that turn the gaze of the discriminated back upon the eye of power.” (The Concept of Cultural Hybridity Media Essay)

“The concept of (cultural) hybridity has gained prominence within a broad range of cultural and social theories since the 1980s, most notably within postcolonial studies, cultural studies, and globalization theory. The importance and influence of hybridity theory is thus closely related to an increased awareness of global cultural flows, influences, and interdependences, both historically and contemporarily. Furthermore, focusing on hybridity and hybridization is a way of conceptualizing difference that aims to avoid and undermine ideas of boundedness and closed identity and hence also avoid the essentialism that haunts theories of multiculturalism for instance.” (Frello)

Diaspora and Cultural Studies:

This is how Jemima Pierre defines the term diaspora and its significance in her article:

“Diaspora is a term used to describe the mass, often involuntary, dispersal of a population from a center (or homeland) to multiple areas, and the creation of communities and identities based on the histories and consequences of dispersal. The term is not new; it is a Greek word once solely used to describe Jewish, Greek, and Armenian dispersions—what some scholars often describe as the “classic” diasporas. However, diaspora has gained currency recently as both a conceptual and analytical tool to explain various practices of global movement and community formation. The use of diaspora emerged in various academic disciplines in the second half of the 20th century both in conjunction with and as an alternative to other terms expressing global shifts in movement and identity formation, sharing meaning with a broader semantic field that includes such terms as transnationalism and globalization.”

“Diaspora studies is an academic field established in the late 20th century to study dispersed ethnic populations, which are often termed diaspora peoples. The usage of the term diaspora carries the connotation of forced resettlement, due to expulsion, coercion, slavery, racism, or war, especially nationalist conflicts.” (Contributors, Diaspora Studies)

This explanation clearly indicates why diaspora and its literature forms a significant concept while discussing cultural studies. The following excerpt explains how identity dynamics play a role while discussing diaspora.

“Over the past two decades, ‘diaspora’ has evolved from a term with a somewhat restricted usage to something considerably more ubiquitous, simultaneously crossing over from political and academic discourse into the vernacular. In academia, the word ‘diaspora’ has, rightly or wrongly, come to be applied to almost any population or group living outside its homeland, while in popular usage diaspora now seems be a collective noun used to refer to anyone not at home. Diasporas – like all cultural or ethnic groups – are distinguished by shared claims to identity that both provide for internal cohesion and mark them off from others. These commonalities are varied: they may be cultural, social, or biological; more specifically they may be religious, linguistic, performative, symbolic, genetic, or material in character. Identities so marked may be expressed and analysed through the study of archaeological artefacts, family or clan names, marriage patterns, residence patterns, economic activity, political practice, dance, dress, and cuisine, the construction of heritage, and the use of vernaculars. In diasporic contexts, these markers of identity often draw attention to a connection with a place that is distant in time or space, and might be curated differently at home and abroad, leading over time to a divergence in expressions of belonging.”  (Walker)

It is also important to note that the term diaspora itself is often used to indicate masses, which again is also a reason why cultural studies is interested in this field. In her article on diaspora, Jemima Pierre explains how, the emergence of diaspora as a concept of study has given rise to an in-depth understanding of other fields of study as well:

“A whole new genre of ethnographic studies has been informed by conceptualizations of diaspora, though the term has also been used across the various sub disciplines—in archaeology, linguistic anthropology, socio-cultural anthropology, and folklore. But even as anthropology grapples with the term’s constantly shifting deployments and varying critiques, diaspora continues to be marked by the standard theoretical concerns of the dialectic of homeland to diaspora; the relationship of the nation-state to diaspora; and the contemporary politics of global population movement—particularly of exiles, refugees, and immigrants.”

Conclusion:

It can be inferred from the above explanation that cultural hybridity and diaspora often go hand in hand. Although these concepts are perpetually remain matters of debate among scholars, they are significant to cultural studies. When such cross cultural communities voice out their views and opinions in the form of their literature, they function as important documents for socio-cultural analysis.

Works Cited

Contributors, Wikipedia. Diaspora Studies. Vers. 886117817. 4 March 2019. web. 5 April 2019. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Diaspora_studies&id=886117817>.

—. Hybridity. Vers. 866945363. 2 November 2018. web. 5 April 2019. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Hybridity&id=866945363>.

Frello, Birgitta. Cultural Hybridity. 5 November 2012. web. 5 April 2019. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0297>.

Paez, Lillie.R. Albert & MAriela. Cultural Hybridity. Ed. James.A. BAnks. 2012. web. 4 April 2019. <http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/diversityineducation/n166.xml>.

The Concept of Cultural Hybridity Media Essay. November 2018. web. 4 April 2019. <https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/the-concept-of-cultural-hybridity-media-essay.php>.

Walker, Joana Sotry & Lain. The impact of Diasporas: markers of identity. 14 December 2015. web. 5 April 2019. <https://tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/01419870.2016.1105999?scroll=top&needAccess=true>.