File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2001/postcolonial.0107, message 54


Subject: Re:postcolonial condition of knowledge.
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:51:21 +0200


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.




Dear list colleagues Mirza and Saeed,

I'm puzzeled. How could hybridity defy anything, how could some global melting pot defy global homogenization?

If by definition hybridity is nothing but re-production, "intercultural" overlappings, and mutual borrowing (correct me if I'm wrong), how could it possibly be creative or innovative or pioneering? For example, I don't recall J-F Lyotard's mentioning hybridity, when writing about the postmodern condition of knowledge. On the contrary, he had a great deal to say about agonism, and agonistic pragmatics...

I think there is something radically antithetic between agonism and hybridity thinking. Hybridity in my opinion cannot be a desirable condition: the hybridity condition must be precisely that which is meant to be overcome by way of agonism. I don't think anything really or radically new could happen just by mere way of borrowing between already existing cultures, or, for that matter, by way of cultural robbery and imperial domination. No new values could be found, no culture or civilization could be self-overcome or self-created, in such ways. 
Insulated, even exclusionary, competitive and yet peaceful cultures need not be us-versus-them constructions or any domination over others, but pure (ethical or epistemological) relationships to themselves. They need not lead to some clash of civilizations. And, provided fair conditions for global competition, they may even bring about cultural overcoming and civilizational blossoming.

Sorry for my very little knowledge about hybridity, I would really appreciate you help me throw light on these matters.

Sincerely Mohammed
 



HTML VERSION:

 
 

Dear list colleagues Mirza and Saeed,

I'm puzzeled. How could hybridity defy anything, how could some global melting pot defy global homogenization?
 
If by definition hybridity is nothing but re-production, "intercultural" overlappings, and mutual borrowing (correct me if I'm wrong), how could it possibly be creative or innovative or pioneering? For example, I don't recall J-F Lyotard's mentioning hybridity, when writing about the postmodern condition of knowledge. On the contrary, he had a great deal to say about agonism, and agonistic pragmatics...
 
I think there is something radically antithetic between agonism and hybridity thinking. Hybridity in my opinion cannot be a desirable condition: the hybridity condition must be precisely that which is meant to be overcome by way of agonism. I don't think anything really or radically new could happen just by mere way of borrowing between already existing cultures, or, for that matter, by way of cultural robbery and imperial domination. No new values could be found, no culture or civilization could be self-overcome or self-created, in such ways. 

Insulated, even exclusionary, competitive and yet peaceful cultures need not be us-versus-them constructions or any domination over others, but pure (ethical or epistemological) relationships to themselves. They need not lead to some clash of civilizations. And, provided fair conditions for global competition, they may even bring about cultural overcoming and civilizational blossoming.

Sorry for my very little knowledge about hybridity, I would really appreciate you help me throw light on these matters.
 
Sincerely Mohammed
  

 

--- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005