Хибридност -- прякор на постиндустриалната парадигма?
Hybridity, a nickname for the post-industrial paradigm?

Summary/Abstract: “The current fascination with cultural hybridity masks an elusive paradox. Hybridity is celebrated as powerfully interruptive and yet theorized as commonplace and pervasive.” (Werbner, 1997:1) If cultures are by their very ordinary nature hybrids ab originem and we are all hybrids, why and how should hybridity be used to describe an extra-ordinary aspect or dynamic of today cultures? The paper is further questioning this “paradox”, showing that, in the field of anthropology, the concern with hybridity is a post-colonial (and post-national) conceptual reaction, both ideological and theoretical, to both “empire-building” and “nation-building anthropology” (Stocking, 1982), mainly aimed to dismantle the ideologies underlining these “classical” forms of anthropological thinking and thus handling properly with the present “fluid modernity” (Bauman, 1992). Hybridity is thus rooted in a change of world view and in a change of the world itself. But, as such, it is rather a poor conceptual and descriptive tool. As in the case of agency oriented approaches, the “structure strikes back” in the case of hybridity too. This becomes obvious when trying to describe empirical cases of hybridity and discovering that there are quite many kinds of it that wait to be named.

• Details
• Contents