Response to Theories of Mixture III: Hybridity

Hybridization describes the cultural mixing that occurs in Latin America, and that process is a result of modernization. Latin America remains inundated with new influences as development spurs global communication and urbanization creates more space for people to access the global market. Hybridization started and created mestizaje, but the process continues and there are still more influencers being introduced. As Latin America becomes more modern, it gains more access to the global community. It is a beneficial relationship (i.e. Latin America and the global community’s relationship) because it means more access to information, technology, and goods. In some ways this improves the national market and provides locals with more resources, and in other ways this globalization can exacerbate the pre-existing inequalities and chip away at the local culture.

The global market means access to cheaper goods, which takes money away from locally sourced products. It also motivates people to become part of a “global culture”, and buy into what is popular and “cool” at that time. That can be disastrous to the local culture because it will be pushed to the side so that locals can accept global standards, practices, and ideas. In other words, globalization has its benefits, but it has a darker side. The increasing number of opportunities is supportive of this process, but it also creates the commodification of local cultures. When mass production demands for mass consumption, everything becomes something that can be sold. Culture and local experiences become commodities to sell, and slogans to increase the number of tourists.

So is hybridization good or bad? The term itself seems to be more fitting, in that it captures the modern patterns of acculturation and transculturation. Heterogeneity seems to be unavoidable, as corporations seek to expand and modernization grows to more areas. Hybridization might create a scientific frame through which to understand the transformation of Latin American culture; the article mentions that urbanization intensifies cultural hybridization. That urbanization means that the international community also access into these different ways of thinking and being. Previously sheltered communities are becoming easier to access and learn about, as such it becomes easier for these cultures to interact with and pick up traits from other cultures. On the one hand that might mean that certain cultures become more open and tolerant, but it is also means the deterioration of the places that we considered exotic. And if our wish for the “exotic” becomes a never-ending practice then everything community will be forced to open up, and nothing will ever be unique as it used to be.

The last thought I have is whether hybridization, globalization, and modernization should be celebrated. The good that it does is unavoidable, but there is a question that is left to answer: how much do damage do these processes inflict?