University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
Departmental Papers (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication
8-2002
Hybridity in Cultural Globalization
Marwan M. Kraidy
University of Pennsylvania, kraidy@asc.upenn.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers
Part of the International and Intercultural Communication Commons
NOTE: At the time of publication, author Marwan Kraidy was affiliated with the American University. Currently (April 2013), he is a faculty member
at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/326
For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu.
Recommended Citation
Kraidy, M. M. (2002). Hybridity in Cultural Globalization. Communication Theory, 12 (3), 316-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1468-2885.2002.tb00272.x
Hybridity in Cultural Globalization
Abstract
Hybridity has become a master trope across many spheres of cultural research, theory, and criticism, and one
of the most widely used and criticized concepts in postcolonial theory. This article begins with a thorough
review of the interdisciplinary scholarship on hybridity. Then it revisits the trope of hybridity in the context of
a series of articles on cultural globalization published in the Washington Post in 1998. This series on
“American Popular Culture Abroad” appropriates hybridity to describe the global reception of U.S. American
popular culture. Due to the controversy surrounding hybridity, the discourse woven into these articles invites
a critical deconstruction. A discussion of the implications of hybridity's conceptual ambiguity follows. Finally,
this article makes the case that hybridity is a conceptual inevitability, and proposes an intercontextual theory
of hybridity, which comprehends global cultural dynamics by articulating hybridity and hegemony, providing
an initial theoretical platform for a critical cultural transnationalism.
Disciplines
International and Intercultural Communication
Comments
NOTE: At the time of publication, author Marwan Kraidy was affiliated with the American University.
Currently (April 2013), he is a faculty member at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University
of Pennsylvania.
This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/326
Hybridity in Cultural Globalization
Marwan M. Kraidy
Hybridity has become a master trope across many spheres of cultural research, theory, and criticism, and
one of the most widely used and criticized concepts in postcolonial theory. This article begins with a
thorough review of the interdisciplinary scholarship on hybridity. Then it revisits the trope of hybridity in
the context of a series of articles on cultural globalization published in the Washington Post in 1998. This
series on “American Popular Culture Abroad” appropriates hybridity to describe the global reception of
U.S. American popular culture. Due to the controversy surrounding hybridity, the discourse woven into
these articles invites a critical deconstruction. A discussion of the implications of hybridity’s conceptual
ambiguity follows. Finally, this article makes the case that hybridity is a conceptual inevitability, and
proposes an intercontextual theory of hybridity, which comprehends global cultural dynamics by
articulating hybridity and hegemony, providing an initial theoretical platform for a critical cultural
transnationalism.
As “one of the most widely employed and disputed terms in postcolonial theory” (Ashcroft,
Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1998, p. 118), hybridity has become a master trope across many spheres of
cultural research, theory, and criticism. While some see hybridity as a site of democratic struggle
and resistance against empire, others have attacked it as a neocolonial discourse complicit with
transnational capitalism, cloaked in the hip garb of cultural theory. Hybridity has also been the
target of attacks alleging that the concept reflects the life of its theorists more than the sites and
communities these theorists write about. The intense controversy swirling around hybridity is
symptomatic of the no less heated debate over the political potential and epistemological
usefulness of postcolonial theory at large. This lingering dispute has pitted proponents of
postcolonial theory’s emancipatory claims against those who believe, as Spivak (1999)
succinctly puts it, that discussions of postcolonial theory “often dissimulate the implicit
collaboration of the postcolonial in the service of neocolonialism” (p. 361). There is an abundant
literature on both the contestation and the affirmation of postcolonial theory, as well as on the
ambiguity of the term “postcolonialism” itself (see Ahmad, 1992, 1995; Appiah, 1991; Bahri,
1995; Dirlik, 1994; Hall, 1996; Mclintock, 1992; Mishra & Hodge, 1991; Miyoshi, 1993;
Shohat, 1992; Spivak, 1999). In communication studies, see the exchange between Shome
(1998) and Kavoori (1998) in Critical Studies in Mass Communication.
It is only recently that hybridity has gained visibility in international media and
communication studies. Several studies have employed hybridity to describe mixed genres and
identities (Kolar-Panov, 1996; Tufte, 1995), however, sustained treatments that theorize cultural
hybridity as a communicative space or practice (Kraidy, 1999; Naficy, 1994) and thus place
hybridity at the heart of communication theory as a field, remain rare. To some extent, this rarity
mirrors the paucity of communication scholarship directly engaging postcolonial theory (Hegde,
1998; Kavoori, 1998; Shome, 1996, 1998), although one can find a few articles based on
postcolonial thought (Parameswaran, 1997, 1999). Nevertheless, regular discussions of hybridity
at recent conventions of the International Association of Media and Communication Research
(IAMCR), the International Communication Association (ICA), and the National
Communication Association (NCA), point to an emerging saliency of hybridity in
communication scholarship.
This trend underscores the need for a critical theorizing of hybridity in the context of
communication theory. As a widely used concept, the recent importation of hybridity to areas
such as intercultural and international communication, risks using the concept as a merely
descriptive device, i.e. describing the local reception of global media texts as a site of cultural
mixture. A merely descriptive use of hybridity creates two quandaries, one ontological and the
other political. Ontologically, whereas a descriptive approach sees hybridity as a clear product
of, say, global and local interactions, I believe that hybridity needs to be understood as a
communicative practice constitutive of, and constituted by, sociopolitical and economic
arrangements. Understanding hybridity as a practice marks the recognition that transcultural
relations are complex, processual, and dynamic. In addition to failing to grasp the ontological
complexity of cultural interactions, a merely descriptive use of hybridity also poses the risk of
undermining the political potential that hybridity might or might not have. 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. However, some scholars have
warned that hybridity and domination are not mutually exclusive.1
Concomitantly, if hybridity
consists merely of observing, cataloguing, and celebrating multicultural mixture, the inequality
that often characterizes these mixtures is glossed over. Ontological and political requisites thus
require a critical theorizing of hybridity in articulation with communication theory.
In this article, I am interested in the theoretical strands of international communication
and culture that have moved beyond the paradigm of cultural imperialism. Some of the criticisms
against cultural imperialism—conceptual ambiguity, epistemological uncertainty (see Fejes,
1981; Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1997; Straubhaar, 1991)—have some validity. However, the
dismissal of cultural imperialism did not serve as an opportunity to build a new critical theory of
transnational communication and culture. As a result, research on cultural globalization
oftentimes appears to be at best descriptive, at worst a noncritical celebration of transnational
culture as global multiculturalism. Since stories on cultural globalization (mainly the global
impact of U.S. popular culture) appear on a regular basis in mainstream media in the United
States, constructions of cultural globalization in the elite press invite analytical engagement. To
that end, this article revisits cultural globalization in the context of a series entitled, “American
Popular Culture Abroad,” published in the Washington Post in October 1998. This article will
attempt to address a gap in recent postcolonial theory and criticism. This gap is the paucity of
postcolonial analysis of contemporary Western media representation of the non-West, in spite of
“the disproportionate influence of the West as a cultural forum” (Bhabha, 1994, p. 21). The
Washington Post articles take the architecture of representation a step beyond the usual concerns
of postcolonial criticism: not only are they Western representations of non-Western sites, but
they are representations of how non-Western contexts encode Western representations.
The article opens with a review of the interdisciplinary literature on hybridity and a
summary of the critiques leveled at the concept of hybridity. A deconstruction of the discourse of
hybridity in the Washington Post articles follows. My objective is to answer the following
questions: 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
postnational talk, celebrating globalization as Americanization” (p. 361)? The analysis concludes
with an exploration of hybridity’s ability to adequately describe and understand global cultural
relations without being reified as corporate multiculturalism.
Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Communication
Early debates on hybridity emerged in the 18th century in the context of interracial contact
resulting from overseas conquest and population displacement in Britain, France, and the United
States. Grounded in comparative anatomy and craniometry, these early speculations on the
hybrid were chiefly concerned with the perceived contamination of White Europeans by the
races they colonized. There were differences of opinion on the vitality of hybrids, oscillating
between “hybrid vigor” and “hybrid sterility,” but all commonly invoked biology to justify
ideologies of White racial superiority and to warn of the danger of interracial breeding described
as “miscegenation” and “amalgamation.” A typical argument in that debate can be found in
Knox (1850) who argued that hybridity was “a degradation of humanity and . . . was rejected by
nature” (p. 497, quoted in Young, 1995, p. 15). This early hybridity discourse was symptomatic
of the Enlightenment’s failure to come to terms with its racist underside (see Young, 1995).
Hybridity took on new meaning in the wake of the decolonization movements that
emerged in the non-West beginning in the 19th century, and saw their heyday in the post-World
War II decades. In Latin America, for instance, after protracted struggles over nationhood in
which some elites attempted to impose a white European national identity, nation-states adopted
mestizaje as their official ideology in their bids to forge national identities distinct from mere
provincial status in the Spanish Empire. The ideology of mestizaje was an attempt to mitigate
tensions between the indigenous populations and the descendants of Spanish colonists, by
positing the new nations as hybrids of both worlds (see, for instance, Archetti, 1999; Hale, 1999;
Martín-Barbero, 1993; Mignolo, 2000). However, mestizaje, as formulated in the Latin American
context, is a deeply racialized concept, which concealed residual imperial relations to the same
extent as it celebrated the racial diversity of the new nations.
Hybridity later emerged as an important dimension of postcolonial cultures in Africa,
Latin America, Asia, and the diaspora in the West. In The Black Atlantic (1993), Paul Gilroy
examines the transatlantic flows of people, ideas, and culture that began with the slave trade,
arguing that “the invigorating flux of . . . mongrel cultural forms” (p. 3) has been significant for
cultural renewal in Europe, Africa, the Caribbean, and America. Similarly, Bhabha (1994)
displaces hybridity from its racialized connotation to the semiotic field of culture. He explores
hybridity in the context of the postcolonial novel, celebrating it as the resilience of the subaltern
and as the contamination of imperial ideology, aesthetics, and identity, by natives who are
striking back at imperial domination. He emphasizes hybridity’s ability to subvert and
reappropriate dominant discourses. Thus, Bhabha affirms that, “The social articulation of
difference, from the minority perspective, is a complex, ongoing negotiation that seeks to
authorize cultural hybridities that emerge in moments of historical transformation” (1994, p. 2).
Bhabha proceeds to argue that what he refers to as “cultures of postcolonial contra-modernity”
are in fact “resistant to . . . oppressive assimilationist technologies . . . but they also deploy the
cultural hybridity of their borderline conditions to ‘translate,’ and therefore reinscribe, the social
imaginary of both metropolis and modernity” (p. 6). One of the chief manifestations of this
reinscription is found in Bhabha’s analysis of mimicry as a hybridizing process. In his landmark
essay, “Of Mimicry and Man,” (1994), Bhabha argues that “the ambivalence of mimicry—
almost but not quite—suggests that the fetishized colonial culture is potentially and strategically
an insurgent counter-appeal” (p. 91). Bhabha’s version of hybridity, imbued with political
potential, has attracted virulent attacks from materialist critics. Bhabha’s work has been equally
influential and contested. Moore-Gilbert (1997) devotes a full chapter to Bhabha, arguing that
one of Bhabha’s most original contributions is to have emphasized “the mutualities and
negotiations across the colonial divide” (p. 116), as opposed to Said’s focus on the colonizer and
Fanon’s emphasis on the colonized. On the other hand, Bhabha’s Lacanian grounding and his
focus on the semiotic domain has made him the favorite target of materialist critics such as Aijaz
Ahmad (1992, 1995). Moore-Gilbert offers a solid counter-critique of Ahmad while
acknowledging weaknesses in Bhabha’s theoretical edifice.
The trope of hybridity has also influenced attempts to address theoretical formulations of
globalization as a large scale and yet fragmented process (Appadurai, 1996; García-Canclini,
1989; Hannerz, 1987; Martín-Barbero, 1993; Pieterse, 1994). Most of these studies have
approached hybridity as a by-product of the transcultural dynamics between tradition and
modernity sometimes conceptualized as the local and the global (i.e. Appadurai’s, 1996, notion
of “disjuncture,” Martín-Barbero’s, 1993, reformulation of the concept of “mediations,” and
García-Canclini’s, 1990, “cultural reconversion”). García-Canclini’s Culturas Híbridas (1989),
probably the most systematic treatment of hybridity, is grounded in the political and cultural
struggles in contemporary Latin America, where “impure genres” are shaped by “oblique”
vectors of power. García-Canclini (1989) adopts a dialectical framework focusing on symbolic
vectors and material forces as mutually constitutive. He writes “cultural heterogeneity” is “one of
the means to explain the oblique powers that intermingle liberal institutions and authoritarian
habits, social democratic movements with paternalistic regimes, and the transactions of some
with others” (1989, p. 3).
García-Canclini’s formulation of cultural hybridity as a realm that crosses from the
aesthetico-symbolic to the cultural politics of citizenship is echoed in performance studies.
Leading works in this group include Werbner and Modood’s Debating Hybridity (1997), Joseph
and Fink’s Performing Hybridity (1999), and Guillermo Gómez-Peña’s The New World Border
(1996). In a statement representative of that formation, Joseph (1999) argues that “the modern
move to deploy hybridity as a disruptive democratic discourse of cultural citizenship is a
distinctly anti-imperial and antiauthoritarian development” (p. 1). The volume edited by Joseph
converges on the idea of “new hybrid identities,” understood as a political gesture, as opposed to
“the historical conditions of plurality, travel, miscegenation, nomadism, displacement, conquest,
and exile that have informed ideas of hybridization globally” (p. 2). According to Joseph,
hybridity is “a democratic expression of multiple affiliations of cultural citizenship in the United
States” (p. 2), which is always in a state of tension with transnational and national political
economy.
Likewise, Werbner propounds an understanding of hybridity as “a theoretical
metaconstruction of social order” (1997, p. 1), which in Europe is linked to xenophobia.
Hybridity’s political potential, according to Werbner, lies in “the transgressive power of
symbolic hybrids to subvert categorical oppositions and hence to create the conditions for
cultural reflexivity and change” (1997, p. 1). Finally, Werbner advocates a theory of hybridity
which “must differentiate, in the first instance, between a politics that proceeds from the
legitimacy of difference, in and despite the need for unity, and a politics that rests on a coercive
unity, ideologically grounded in a single monolithic truth” (1997, p. 21). Hale (1999), Kapchan
and Strong (1999), and Stross (1999) have also grappled with the potential and pitfalls of
hybridity.
Critiques of Theories of Hybridity
Having been enlisted for various political and scholarly agendas, hybridity has emerged as a
privileged site for conceptualizing global/local articulations. Even the venerable Journal of
American Folklore recently devoted an entire issue to “theorizing the hybrid” (Kapchan &
Strong, 1999). This widespread use of hybridity has attracted critiques whose tone ranges from
cautionary to scathing. These critiques are partly the result of hybridity’s conceptual ambiguity,
but are mainly caused by strong divergences on the meaning and implications of hybridity. In
effect, hybridity is mired in two paradoxes. The first is that hybridity is understood as subversive
and pervasive, exceptional and ordinary, marginal yet mainstream. For instance, Werbner (1997)
writes that “The current fascination with cultural hybridity masks an elusive paradox. Hybridity
is celebrated as powerfully interruptive and yet theorized as commonplace and pervasive” (p. 1).
The second paradox is that hybridity’s foggy conceptual circumference, in other words its
extreme openness, allows for unpredictable, arbitrary, and exclusionary closure. This is
illustrated by Gómez-Peña (1996), who proposes the metaphor New World Border as a substitute
to that of the New World Order. Proclaiming hybridity as the dominant characteristic of
contemporary culture, Gómez-Peña acknowledges the concept’s limitations, writing that
“precisely because of its elasticity and open nature, the hybrid model can be appropriated by
anyone to mean practically anything. Since the essence of its borders is oscillation, these
boundaries can be conveniently repositioned to include and exclude different peoples and
communities” (1996, pp. 12–13). These paradoxes have become wedges through which critics
have attacked hybridity as poststructuralist license, and accused its proponents of reactionary
politics wrapped in theoretical jargon.
One form of criticism argues that because of its pervasiveness, hybridity is theoretically
useless. Werbner (1997) summarizes this point of view when she writes that “All cultures are
always hybrid. . . . Hybridity is meaningless as a description of ‘culture,’ because this
‘museumizes’ culture as a ‘thing.’ . . . Culture as an analytic concept is always hybrid . . . since it
can be understood properly only as the historically negotiated creation of more or less coherent
symbolic and social worlds” (Werbner, 1997, p. 15). Since all culture is always hybrid, this
argument goes, then hybridity is conceptually disposable. Gilroy (1993) offers a slightly nuanced
rendition of this argument when he states that “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” (p. 2).
A second objection to the use of hybridity is that it is a form of self-indulgence by
diasporic intellectuals who have the cultural and economic resources that allow them to spend
time and effort theorizing. This argument is maintained by several contributors to the Werbner
and Modood volume (1997), such as Friedman (1997), who in Werbner’s words, finds hybridity
discourse to be a form of “moral self-congratulation” (Werbner, 1997, p. 22), or Hutnyk (1997)
who sees hybridity as a political dead-end that trivializes ethnic politics. In communication
scholarship, this argument is taken up against postcolonial theory at large by Kavoori (1998)
who argues that the term postcolonial “is a term less about the world it seeks to describe and
more about the world its users occupy” (p. 201, emphasis in original).
The third argument against hybridity is related to the second. Werbner (1997) writes that
“Too much hybridity . . . leaves all the old problems of class exploitation and racist oppression
unresolved” (p. 20). Van der Veer (1997) puts it this way, “the hybridity celebrated in Cultural
Studies has little revolutionary potential since it is part of the very discourse of bourgeois
capitalism and modernity which it claims to displace” (p. 104). The use of hybridity has thus
been criticized as politically suspicious because it allegedly lends legitimacy to a corporate
rhetoric that frames cultural mixture as a market to be taken by capital, and at the same time
elides accusations of economic domination and assorted forms of imperialism. Ahmad (1995)
delivered one of the most scathing condemnations of hybridity, arguing that within the current
context of global market neoliberalism, “speaking with virtually mindless pleasure of
transnational cultural hybridity, and of politics of contingency, amounts, in effect, to endorsing
the cultural claims of transnational capital itself” (p. 12).
A fourth criticism of the use of hybridity is found in the discussion of the meanings and
implications of multiculturalism. Here, hybridity is seen as a strategy of cooptation used by the
power holders to neutralize difference. Chow (1993) encapsulates this view, when she writes:
“What Bhabha’s word ‘hybridity’ [revives], in the masquerade of deconstructing antiimperialism,
and ‘difficult’ theory, is an old functionalist notion of what a dominant culture
permits in the interest of maintaining its own equilibrium” (p. 35). Chow (1993) and others (see
García-Canclini, 1989), point out that hybridity is hegemonically constructed in the interest of
dominant sectors in society.
The insights offered by critics of hybridity underscore the ambiguous and disputed
meanings of the concept. However, they merely describe hybridity’s controversial status, and
stop short of engaging it as a problematic. After all, if hybridity is pervasive, as most scholars of
culture seem to agree, then we do need to name hybridity and develop contextual tools to tackle
its vexing ambiguity. Hybridity becomes a floating signifier ripe for appropriation, precisely
because we use the concept without rigorous theoretical grounding. I am not insinuating that
there should be a singular perspective on hybridity that scholars ought to adhere to. Rather, I am
contending that a nongrounded use of hybridity is detrimental to theorizing in international and
intercultural communication because it encourages superficial uses of the concept. Such uses will
tend to be descriptive rather than analytical, utilitarian rather than critical. Since instances of
cultural mixture abound in intercultural relations, a merely descriptive use of hybridity is
especially threatening because it leads to uncritical claims that “all cultures are hybrid” and
evacuates hybridity of any heuristic value. This underscores the importance of grounding
hybridity contextually and theoretically, utilizing it tactically in individual projects and
strategically in communication theory at large. The following analysis will use the 1998
Washington Post series on “American Popular Culture Abroad” as an opportunity to address,
first, the implications of the use of hybridity in representations of cultural globalization. Second,
the analysis will serve as the initial step in theorizing a strategic vision of hybridity within
intercultural and international communication.
Cultural Globalization and Hybridity in the Washington Post
In October 1998, the Washington Post published a series of articles on “American Popular
Culture Abroad.” The first article appeared on October 25, with the headline “American Pop
Penetrates Worldwide” (Farhi & Rosenfeld, 1998). Exhibiting its global credentials, the paper
credits numerous contributors to the story corresponding from Tehran, Nairobi, Hong Kong,
Beijing, New Delhi, Mexico City, London, Paris, Jerusalem, Bogota, Warsaw, Moscow, Berlin,
Tokyo, and Toronto. Two articles followed on October 26. One was submitted from Los Angeles
with the headline “Hollywood Tailors its Movies to Sell in Foreign Markets,” its subheadline
claiming “Studios Say ‘Ethnic’ Films Are Not Popular Overseas” (Waxman, 1998). The other
was sent from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and was titled “Malaysians Create Hybrid Culture with
American Imports,” with the subheadline “Despite Government Censorship, Young People
Enthusiastically Embrace Western Music, Fashions” (Rosenfeld, 1998). On October 27, the
Washington Post carried the last two articles in the series. “Barbie, ‘Titanic’ Show Good Side of
U.S.” was filed from the Iranian capital, Tehran (Lancaster, 1998), while the other, “With
Popularity Comes Pitfalls” (Trueheart, 1998), was sent from Paris.
As the newspaper of record in the capital city of the world’s sole remaining superpower,
the Washington Post is highly influential. It is read by the U.S. political elite, whose opinions
and policies have global implications. As a significant site of representation, the capital’s leading
newspaper carries discourses that warrant attention and scrutiny. Due to this status, the
Washington Post’s discourse of hybridity as the primary characteristic of international cultural
relations between the United States and developing nations merits a close reading. An
examination of the five articles on “American Popular Culture Abroad” first reveals that in some
instances, hybridity is deployed directly, such as in the headline on Malaysia (“Malaysians
Create Hybrid Culture with American Imports,” Rosenfeld, 1998). In most cases, however,
hybridity is generally evoked as a characteristic feature of transcultural dynamics. Due to
hybridity’s conceptual ambiguity and the controversy over its meanings and implications, the
Washington Post’s adoption of the concept calls for a critical deconstruction of the articles. In
that undertaking, I attempt to answer the following questions: How is hybridity deployed in the
articles? Is it embedded in a progressive discourse of cultural globalization that takes into
account global inequalities? Or is hybridity used as a shroud for cultural disparity, justifying the
cultural, and by extension politico-economic, global order?
As a reading strategy, deconstruction exposes the “discrepancy between a text’s explicit
‘statement’ [hybridity as enlightened diversity] and its implicit ‘gesture’ [hybridity as a
progressive discourse of cultural difference, or hybridity as cultural hegemony]” (Derrida, 1976,
p. 162). It proceeds in two phases. The first stage is renversement, which means inversing, or
overturning, where the critic knocks down the “violent hierarchy” (Derrida, 1972, p. 56)
characteristic of discursive formations. This shakes up positions of discursive privilege and
privation since “to deconstruct is first of all, at a given moment, to knock down the hierarchy”
(Derrida, 1972, p. 57). However, this inversion does not change the systemic rules of the
discursive formation, therefore, deconstruction needs to proceed with its second phase, “the
irruptive emergence of a new ‘concept’,”(Derrida, 1972, p. 57) which “never let itself become
understandable in the previous regime” (1972, p. 57). It is in the interval between renversement
and irruption that deconstruction occurs, and continues unfolding as an analyse interminable
(Derrida, 1972, p. 57). Chang (1996) has warned against a popular misreading of Derridean
deconstruction, reminding the reader that deconstruction “does not license uncurbed textual
freedom, nor does it in any way lead to interpretive anarchy or moral relativism” (p. xii). In this
article, deconstruction will serve to disentangle the implicit gesture from the explicit statement
on hybridity presented by the Washington Post.
Hybridity and the Lure of the West
The five articles in the Washington Post series “American Popular Culture Abroad” focus on two
dimensions of the transnational reception of U.S. mass-mediated culture: Western technology
and non-Western desire. Western technology is depicted as an instrument that undermines
censorship in non-Western countries, and also as a fetish of Western slickness, modernity, and
creativity to which foreign audiences aspire. In the article “Barbie, ‘Titanic’ Show Good Side of
U.S.” (Lancaster, 1998), the reader is treated to a detailed report of the impotence of
governments worldwide against the cultural tide unleashed onto their countries by Western
technology. Focusing on the reception of American popular culture in Iran, which is perceived as
the ideological and cultural arch-nemesis of the United States, the article quotes an Iranian
journalist saying that “part of the fascination with American movies” is due to “Hollywood
special-effects wizardry” (p. A1). The other articles describe a variety of ways by which the
United States can project its culture around the world because of its highly developed media
technologies. One article quotes an American film marketing executive explaining the popularity
of American popular culture abroad: “This is a huge, huge pace, and it’s being fueled by the
various platforms for American product, whether it’s the newest one, DVD, or basic cable, or
pay-per-view” (Waxman, 1998, p. A1). Another article claims that,
There is less to Iranian censorship than meets the eye. Despite stiff fines, satellite dishes are widely if
discreetly used, and customs authorities are helpless against the flood of tapes, videocassettes and other
illicit materials smuggled from abroad; one diplomat described an Iranian friend who boasted recently of
having passed through the airport here with 35 CDs hidden in his clothing and bags. (Lancaster, 1998, p.
A1)
This excerpt articulates Western technology with non-Western desire for U.S. popular culture.
Technology and desire constitute a potent articulation undermining allegedly authoritarian
protectionist tendencies. The frustrated desire that non-Western audiences have for U.S. popular
culture is depicted as an irresistible attraction. Accounts of the relationship between U.S. popular
culture and foreign audiences are peppered with varying degrees of sexual connotation, casting
U.S. popular culture as a dominant male who commands submissive desire from global
audiences. The first article’s headline sets the tone, proclaiming “American Pop Penetrates
[italics added] Worldwide” (Farhi & Rosenfeld, 1998, p. A1). In the same article, the authors
write about “the desire [italics added] to appear more American” (Farhi & Rosenfeld, 1998, p.
A1) which motivate Indian youth as they adopt one fad after another from U.S. cultural imports.
Another article describes how Malaysia, “like much of the developing world . . . embraces
[italics added] American popular culture” (Rosenfeld, 1998, p. A23). The article proceeds by
claiming that in Malaysia “as elsewhere, the love affair is fraught with turbulence and passion
[italics added], ambivalence and confusion” (Rosenfeld, 1998, A23). Direct quotes from artists
and intellectuals about sexual content in U.S. popular culture are highlighted. For example, a
nationally renowned Malaysian cartoonist is quoted saying that people in his native village are
no more “innocent [italics added]” (Rosenfeld, 1998, p. A23) as a result of being exposed to U.S.
popular culture through television. Likewise, a Malaysian advertising executive is quoted
claiming that to Malaysian censors “Armpits are a no-no. No bare shoulders or backs. The
American influence they want to keep out is almost always sex [italics added]” (Rosenfeld, 1998,
p. A23). Still another article describes a McDonald’s restaurant in a non-U.S. location as a
“pleasure zone [italics added]” (Trueheart, 1998, p. A19), while another article writes about “the
lure of the forbidden fruit [italics added]” which has “grabbed younger Iranians by the lapels”
(Lancaster, 1998, p. A1). While it is true that U.S. material culture enjoys global popularity,
research has consistently shown that audiences prefer locally produced fare because of cultural
proximity (see Chadha and Kavoori, 2000; Sinclair, Jacka, & Cunningham, 1996; Straubhaar,
1991; Tracey, 1985). The articles do not contextualize reception by introducing other media
texts—national and regional—enjoyed by the international audiences spellbound by U.S. popular
culture.
American technology and non-Western audience desire are the discursive axes upon
which the transnational reception of U.S. popular culture is aligned. They form the basis of a
hybridity discourse paternalistically grounded in a binary between an aspiring non-West and U.S.
popular culture, the latter setting global standards of taste to be emulated by the former. It is
ironic that one of the articles quotes no less than the head of the Malaysian Research Centre,
supposedly one of the most enlightened members of his society, saying that “we don’t know
what we want” (Rosenfeld, 1998, p. A23). In the same article, a Malaysian rock star, dubbed
“The Bob Dylan of Malaysia,” similarly says: “Our own people are very insecure about their
music” (Rosenfeld, 1998, p. A23). A condescending tone is also manifest when Hollywood is
described as a source of learning, elevating the level of sophistication of worldwide viewers—
foreign audiences are claimed to have developed a more refined artistic taste as a result of their
exposure to American movies. In support of this claim, Sony Pictures Entertainment President
John Calley is quoted saying, “foreign moviegoers want to see anything that’s good. They’re like
us. We have in some way Americanized much of the world; they’ve assimilated a lot of stuff”
(Waxman, 1998, p. A1). The flip side of this equation, according to at least one of the articles, is
that U.S. popular culture and public culture suffer as a result. This is expressed by Gitlin, who
states that, “Insofar as American-based studios are making stuff for the global market, the stuff is
dumbed down” perhaps leading to “the cheapening of social discourse” in the United States (see
Waxman, 1998, A1). This view ignores the alternative perspective that the adoption of U.S.
commercial broadcasting and its programming formats, largely dependent on sensational talk and
game shows, might have “cheapened” social discourse globally. Nevertheless, the articles posit
American popular culture as a benchmark, an opportunity for developing countries to shed their
allegedly unsophisticated tastes as they attempt to emulate the cultural sensibilities of American
audiences. Again, this position ignores numerous landmark reception studies where audiences
are seen as actively capable of alternative interpretation (Ang, 1985; Liebes & Katz, 1990;
Morley, 1980, 1994). The articles thus contend that foreign audiences create hybrid cultures
while succumbing to the seduction of U.S. popular culture. The contradiction between granting
global audiences agency in creating hybridity, while denying them agency in receiving U.S.
popular culture, is complicated further by the articles’ concomitant claim that reception is the site
where hybrid cultures are created.
Hybridity as Corporate Multiculturalism
This contradictorily simultaneous granting and denial of agency continues as the Washington
Post articles establish hybridity as a discursive context in which the American movie industry is
largely motivated by customer expectations of overseas audiences, again imbuing these
audiences with a sort of consumer agency. Thus one article (Waxman, 1998) begins:
Most Americans know that our popular culture exerts a powerful influence across the globe, shaping attitudes,
trends and styles. But the inverse—a more subtle effect—is also true: The worldwide hunger for U.S.-made
entertainment helps steer our own culture, by encouraging projects that will sell overseas and discouraging those that
foreign audiences are thought to spurn. (p. A1)
Consequently, according to these articles, the global marketplace dictates studio practices. Hence
the headline “Hollywood Tailors its Movies to Sell in Foreign Markets” (Waxman, 1998, p. A1).
The article then claims that “The global market is the engine behind Hollywood’s assemblyline,”
thus justifying the high number of violent action films churned out by Hollywood. Some
ingredients for global box-office success are added at the last minute:
Two months before the opening of Armageddon, the story of an asteroid hurtling toward Earth, Disney decided to
add not only $3 million more in explosions, but also reaction-to-the-asteroid shots from Morocco and Paris. Said
Disney Studios Chairman Joe Roth, “It was to make sure the movie had more of an international feel to it.”
(Waxman, 1998, p. A1)
This cosmetic internationalization of the movie’s textual surface in fact begs an alternative
explication. What those so-called international scenes do is to cast the United States as the sole
protector of the world, since no other country participated in the attempt to destroy the asteroid.
In effect, then, the cosmopolitan textual surface asserts the position of the United States as the
sole remaining superpower.
Based on a “customer-as-king” cliché arguing in favor of the alleged benefits of
transnational capitalism to the world population, hybridity is enlisted as a natural dimension of
global strategic marketing, predicated on conquering diverse niche markets. Thus transnational
capitalism is painted as a progressive force spearheading the global expansion of democracy. As
demonstrated in the preceding pages, this corporate discourse evokes the interrelated themes of
customer desire and satisfaction, the retreat or weakness of the state, and the conflation of
capitalism with democracy. These are the principal tenets of economic neoliberalism, a
philosophy of governance that has been ascendant for several decades and has become the
dominant policy mode in leading political and economic circles. This vision of hybridity is thus
grounded in the neo-liberal ideology driving the current stage of globalization, with its relentless
push towards opening new markets, dismantling state barriers to market expansion, and
widespread consumerism. At the surface of the Washington Post’s version of hybridity, foreign
audiences are elevated from their initial status as immature viewers to that of an active and
sophisticated market audience. In turn, this discourse sets up foreign audiences as a culpable
Other in the context of racial tensions in the United States. The articles quote U.S. movie
executives defending their propensity not to cast minority actors in major movies, imputing their
exclusionary casting decisions to foreign audiences. In “Studios Say ‘Ethnic’ Films Are Not
Popular Overseas” (Waxman, 1998, p. A1), the reporter writes:
Foreign distributors, according to [Hollywood] executives and producers, are less interested in investing in films that
focus on women (Fried Green Tomatoes was not a big hit overseas) and have almost no interest in movies that have
African Americans or other minority casts and themes. (p. A1)
Insinuated in this statement is the assumption that foreign audiences are racist and misogynist.
The article then refers to the lawsuit by Lawrence Fishburne against producer Andrew Vajna,
who dropped the actor from the cast after securing the less costly and relatively unknown Samuel
L. Jackson for the role in Die Hard With a Vengeance. The article describes the objections by
minority actors in Hollywood to what they see as institutionalized racism, but the reporter
perfunctorily uses the euphemism “racial bias” instead of racism. Similarly, the article does
mention that independent movies with foreign funding do not face the same casting restrictions.
However, the general tone is the one manifest in this quote by a Sony executive:
We’re cognizant of what does not work internationally . . . Black baseball movies, period dramas about football, rap,
inner-city films—most countries can’t relate to that. Americana seems to be desired by international markets, but
there comes a point when even they will resist and say, “We don’t get it,” and it’s generally in that ethnic, inner-city,
sports-driven region. He paused. We can’t give ‘em what they don’t want. (p. A1)
The commercialism of this last passage speaks for itself. To be fair, the reporter attempts to
provide some nuance to this theme, describing how Whoopi Goldberg’s Sister Act was very
popular abroad. However, the issue of race is surreptitiously discarded when the reporter
concludes, “It’s a question, largely, of mathematics. In Hollywood, cold calculations are made
based on the projected international box office revenues” (Waxman, 1998, p. A1). This is not to
accuse the reporters or newspaper of racism but to underscore that the article’s general
orientation preempted an adequate treatment of the issue of race. The article goes on to describe
the “Star Power” list that Hollywood goes by, with Tom Cruise scoring a perfect 100, followed
by Harrison Ford at 99, Mel Gibson at 98, etc. The top 20 list only contains 2 women, with Jodie
Foster rating 94 and Julia Roberts 92. The list makes no mention of minorities. According to the
articles, the reason Hollywood does not cast African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American
actors in major blockbusters is because minority actors are not popular with foreign audiences.
The same case, to a lesser degree, is applied to women actors. Domestic U.S. issues are thus
given a global amplification pitting U.S. minorities against foreign audiences.
The newspaper stories offer no critical evaluation of Hollywood’s modus operandi,
contributing to the erasure of ideological issues in favor of strictly economic explanations of
movie industry practices. These practices embody what the Chicago Cultural Studies Group
(1992) coined “corporate multiculturalism,” and illustrates the “great danger [that] lies in
thinking that multiculturalism could be exported multiculturally” (p. 550). In effect, the hybridity
enlisted in the pages of the Washington Post indirectly enacts a backlash on diversity by
claiming that the bottom line determines the color line. The articles thus articulate economic neoliberalism
with socio-political conservatism, foregrounding hybridity to conceal a corporatejustified
“racial bias” that operates both within the United States and globally. Hybridity is thus
professed as an important element of transnational corporate multiculturalism.
Articulating Hybridity and Hegemony in Cultural Globalization: Towards an
Intercontextual Theory of Hybridity
In light of the deconstruction of the Washington Post’s version of hybridity, it is beneficial to
reformulate the questions raised in the first pages of this essay: How does the appropriation of
hybridity in the Washington Post frame cultural globalization? More specifically, does the
deployment of hybridity justify, or question, uneven transnational and transcultural relations?
This tactical endeavor focusing on one text (the “American Popular Culture Abroad” series)
echoes the larger strategic concerns of the postcolonial project, which, according to Shome
(1996), are summed up in two questions:
How do Western discursive practices, in their representations of the world and of themselves, legitimize the
contemporary global power structures? To what extent do the cultural texts of nations such as the United
States and England reinforce the neo-imperial political practices of these nations? (p. 42)
The Washington Post series constructs a monolithic hybridity in which cultures as different as
Poland, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Brazil are lumped together as unabashedly welcoming
United States popular culture since it is more appealing than local fare. As stated earlier, research
has shown that audiences usually prefer local to imported popular culture products, an issue
completely neglected in the articles. Hybridity is thus seen as a capitulation to the seduction of
otherness, and not as a mutation and renewal of identity. This point is made clear in the way the
Washington Post articles construct hybridity as a defeat of local governments in the non-West,
depicted as underdeveloped, corrupt, and authoritarian. Finally, the articles do not scrutinize
Hollywood’s claim that global market demands lead to casting decisions that exclude minority
actors. The Washington Post “American Popular Culture Abroad” series thus provides a
textually seductive but politically unfruitful deployment of hybridity. This recognition gives
credence to materialist critics who accuse proponents of hybridity of complicity with the claims
and goals of transnational capitalism.
Actually, the articles’ characterization of hybridity offers a heuristic exemplar of the
vulnerability of the postcolonial project to appropriation. In this case, hybridity is appropriated in
an attempt to fix the meanings constructed by global audiences in their reception of U.S. popular
culture. This transnational cultural flow occurs in a context where American-based media
conglomerates have become increasingly active in the global arena. These transnational
corporations control both production structures and program content. To a large extent, they also
control the worldwide distribution of their products. However, as nearly two decades of
scholarship on active audience formation in media and cultural studies demonstrates, it is the
reception of products that is not fully controllable by transnational media corporations. The
articles’ portrayal of reception as a space of hybrid creation results in the eviction of power
imbalances in transnational cultural exchanges, and the concomitant celebration of a
nonthreatening hybridity. The hybridity in question here operates to discursively foreclose the
reception process, putting the entire chain of signification under the control of transnational
capital. In their embrace of a power-free notion of hybridity, the Washington Post articles
validate Western cultural preeminence.
Exposing this hybridity’s explicit statement of enlightened diversity and unmasking its
implicit gesture of cultural hegemony clears the scene for an alternative, and critical, theory of
hybridity to emerge. This is important because, as stated earlier in this article, the demise of the
cultural imperialism model has left a major theoretical void in international communication,
culture theory, and research. Moreover, theoretical construction is a necessity because mere
criticism offers no exit from the political and conceptual paradoxes of hybridity. These are (a)
hybridity’s concurrent subversiveness and pervasiveness, and (b) hybridity’s extreme polysemy
and instability, in that it is always in the process of occurring, unfolding, and undoing the fixity
of binary opposites. As such, hybridity is always subject to discursive preemption, like the one
performed in the Washington Post’s articles. Therefore, a critical theory of hybridity in the
context of intercultural and international communication must address hybridity’s propensity for
conceptual and political slippage.
In this endeavor, it is helpful to theorize hybridity as an undecidable (indécidable;
Derrida, 1972, p. 58), 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” (Derrida, 1972, p. 58,
emphasis in original). Conceptualizations of hybridity are arduous to the extent that they attempt
to constitute a third term, to fix the meaning of the hybrid. In spite of the potential for
antiprogressive appropriation and conceptual ambiguity, hybridity is undeniable as a global
existential cultural condition (Hall, 1991a, 1991b; Joseph, 1999; Kraidy, 1999; Rosaldo, 1995;
Said, 1994; Werbner, 1997). Therefore, despite theorists’ discomfort and reluctance vis-à-vis the
concept of hybridity, I do not see any credible substitute to characterize the dual forces of
globalization and localization, cohesion and dispersal, disjuncture and mixture, that capture
transnational and transcultural dialectics. A critical theorizing is crucial precisely because
hybridity’s openness makes it particularly vulnerable to appropriation by transnational
capitalism. Hybridity is such a slippery concept because it is simultaneously an undecidable and
a conceptual inevitability.
The theoretical challenge to intercultural and international communication theory thus
resides in the following conundrum: Under what conditions does hybridity, as a global pervasive
condition, fulfill, or not fulfill, its progressive potential in a local context? In what context do
social agents revert to a hegemonic deployment of hybridity? Finally, what attributes should a
critical theory of hybridity require for it to be a meaningful heuristic within intercultural and
international communication? In other words, what theory will allow us to render hybridity as a
mode of lived experience and aesthetic sensibility, while at the same time map up the working of
power shaping enactments of hybridity? More specifically, how can we theorize hybridity as a
communicative practice of meaning and power, or, how can we articulate hybridity and
hegemony in communication theory? These questions have been the driving force behind this
article, and the discussion and conclusion that follow attempt to address them.
The articulation of hybridity and power is perhaps best captured by the term
“intercontextuality,” coined by Appadurai (1996), which allows us to understand text and context
to be mutually constitutive in a field of not necessarily correspondent power/signification. I
propose an intercontextual theory of hybridity that explicates transnational cultural dynamics by
articulating hybridity and hegemony in a global context. By context I do not merely mean an
environment or a setting where practices unfold and texts find their grounding. Rather, I use
context as a constitutive and constituting force, in the sense elaborated by Jennifer Daryl Slack
(1996) when she wrote: “The context is not something out there, within which practices occur of
which influence the development of practices. Rather, identities, practices, and effects generally,
constitute the very context with which they are practices, identities, or effects” (p. 125, emphasis
in original). An intercontextual theory of hybridity emphasizes how processes of creating
consent and coordinating interests in a moving equilibrium underscore manifestations and
deployments of hybridity. In the context of international and intercultural communication, an
intercontextual theory of hybridity focuses on the mutually constitutive interplay and overlap of
cultural, economic, and political forces in international communication processes. Perhaps more
importantly, an intercontextual theory of hybridity would examine the relationship between
structure and agency as a dialectical articulation whose results are not preordained. In this
respect, García-Canclini (1989) writes that:
The increase in processes of hybridization makes it evident that we understand very little about power if we only
examine confrontations and vertical actions. Power would not function if it were exercised only by bourgeoisie over
proletarians, whites over indigenous people, parents over children, the media over receivers. Since all these relations
are interwoven with each other, each one achieves an effectiveness that it would never be able to by itself. (p. 259)
This echoes Hall’s proposition: “A theory of articulation is both a way of understanding
how ideological elements come, under certain conditions, to cohere together in a discourse, and a
way of asking how they do or do not become articulated, at specific conjunctures, to certain
political subjects” (1986, p. 53). An intercontextul theory of hybridity, to paraphrase GarcíaCanclini
and Hall, will allows us to comprehend how under certain conditions, in certain
contexts, ideological elements coalesce in a certain discourse of hybridity. An intercontextual
theory of hybridity thus becomes a map of the diffuse workings of power. It recognizes that
hybridity is not a posthegemonic state. To go back to international communication theory as an
example, an intercontextual theory of hybridity moves us beyond cultural imperialism’s
economic determinism, and at the same time provides a needed amendment to “postimperialist”
work that ignores power and inequality. Applied to transnational cultural dynamics,
intercontextuality maintains that hybridity is always articulated with hegemonic power. Our
attention, then, needs to be redirected from debating the political and theoretical usefulness of
hybridity, to analyzing how hegemonic structures operate in a variety of contexts to construct
different hybridities.
The Washington Post articles are illustrative of the hybridity/hegemony articulation,
because hybridity is summoned up to justify a transnational cultural hegemony made possible by
power asymmetries. It is consequently an act of discursive naturalization of unequal relations by
those at the privileged end of these relations. This underscores Laclau’s argument that “A class is
hegemonic not so much to the extent that it is able to impose a uniform conception of the world
on the rest of society, but to the extent that it can articulate different visions of the world in such
a way that their potential antagonism is neutralized” (1977, p. 161). By articulating a hybrid
vision of global culture characterized by nonconflictual relations and a longing for Western
culture, the articles on “American Popular Culture Abroad” obscure the vast economic, political
and technological inequities between nations. These issues are given marginal treatment, where
they are neutralized by a utilitarian deployment of the hybrid.
In order to have a critical edge, hybridity should be understood as a communicative
practice. A practice, in Stuart Hall’s terms, is how a structure is actively reproduced” (1985, p.
103). This stands in stark contrast with hybridity as conceptualized in the Washington Post
articles, which is posited as a result, a product of transnational mediations. Therefore, hybridity
should be conceptualized as one modality in which hegemony is practiced, reproducing and
maintaining the new world order. In the Washington Post, hybridity emerges as a privileged
characterization of cultural globalization, one of a few theories advanced to understand
intercivilizational interactions in the post-Cold War era (Fukuyama, 1992; Huntington, 1996).
Although hybridity may well be what Derrida (1972) would call an undecidable, we must
find arbitrary entry points from which to tackle the practice of hegemony in hybridity. Whereas
Derrida’s post-Marxist tendency (which Hall, 1985, refers to as “no necessary correspondence”)
makes tackling the hybrid arduous, Hall’s neo-Marxist interpretation allows the critic to narrow
down on those conjunctures when correspondence is sutured. To that effect, Hall writes that,
“The principal theoretical reversal accomplished by ‘no necessary correspondence’ is that
determinacy is transferred from the genetic origins of class or other social forces in a structure to
the effects or results of a practice” (1985, p. 95).
The foundations of an intercontextual theory of hybridity have in fact been under
construction, because the burgeoning studies have not led to a unified hybridity paradigm. It is
clear that the concept of hybridity has been appropriated to serve a variety of theoretical
explorations and political agendas. This undermines any claims to a universalistic theory of
hybridity, which would obfuscate the contingent, contextual, and processual imbrication of the
hegemonic and the hybrid. If, as Slack (1996) has argued, “the analysis of any concrete situation
or phenomenon entails the exploration of complex, multiple, and theoretically abstract nonnecessary
links” (p. 119), then a theory of hybridity is both useful and necessary to understand
global cultural complexity. Critics of hybridity in particular, and postcolonial theory more
generally, should heed Butler’s (1998) warning against “the resurgence of a theoretical
anachronism . . . which seeks to identify the new social movements with the merely cultural, and
the cultural with the derivative and secondary” (p. 36).
An intercontextual theory of hybridity provides an initial conceptual platform for a
critical cultural transnationalism that helps us understand neocolonial discourses and actions in
transnational cultural dynamics. I propose this theoretical development in the hope that future
scholarship would take up the challenge to address hybridity in international communication
theory and research. For more than a decade, a growing consensus has emerged to discard
cultural imperialism, for reasons outlined earlier in this article. Still, cultural imperialism has
been a critical paradigm whose proponents have exposed power imbalances between the
industrialized West and the developing world. Most available alternatives to cultural imperialism
tend to implicitly or explicitly espouse neoliberal ideology, without a critical scrutiny of its
implications. Grounded in an intercontextual theory of hybridity, critical cultural
transnationalism emphasizes hybridities as practices of hegemony. Such a theory is useful to the
extent that it helps us illuminate the slippery and interstitial workings of power in transnational
contexts that ostensibly declare themselves nonpower zones of cultural mixture. An
intercontextual theory of hybridity belongs in the arsenal of the critical cultural scholar, because
it illuminates issues of context, process, and representation central to intercultural and
international communication. We need to continue theorizing hybridity as a condition that is not
merely cultural. For, after all, in Hall’s words, “The only theory worth having is that which you
have to fight off, not that which you speak with profound fluency” (1992, p. 280).
Author
Marwan M. Kraidy teaches international communication and culture in the School of International Service at
American University, Washington, DC. His research on Arab media, global communication, and transcultural
processes has been published in Critical Studies in Mass Communication, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, and Journal of Transnational Broadcasting Studies.
Note
1
Oliveira (1995) argues that telenovelas in Latin America (a dramatic genre similar to soap operas) do not constitute
“a reaction against an imported worldview,” but rather “examplif[y] the creolization of U.S. cultural products” (p.
119). He concludes that the success of locally produced telenovelas in Brazil” enhance[s] not diversity, but
domination” (p. 129). In support of his argument Oliveira cites Sinclair (1990) and Beltran and Cardona (1982), in
addition to six other Brazilian studies. It is important to note that scholars like Rogers and Antola (1985), and
Straubhaar (1991) have reached the opposite conclusion. Rogers and Antola even referred to a “reverse cultural
imperialism” (1985, p. 33) from Latin America into the United States. The most recent reappraisal of this debate
(Biltereyst & Meers, 2000), based on an “empirical comparative enquiry” (p. 408) of telenovela-flows from Latin
America to Europe, recommends that “the telenovela phenomenon should not be treated as a case in the traditional
North-South dialogue, but should be firmly located in the debate around globalization strategies of late-capitalist
cultural industries” (p. 410).
References
Ahmad, A. (1992). In theory: Classes, nations, literatures. London: Verso
Ahmad, A. (1995). The politics of literary postcoloniality. Race and Class, 36, 1–20.
Ang, I. (1985). Watching Dallas. London: Routledge.
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Appiah, K. A. (1991). Is the post- in postmodernism the post- in postcolonial? Critical Inquiry, 17, 336–357.
Archetti, E. P. (1999). Masculinities: Football, polo and the tango in Argentina. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1998). Key concepts in post-colonial studies. New York: Routledge.
Bahri, D. (1995). One more time with feeling: What is postcolonialism? Ariel, 26, 51–82.
Beltrán, L. R., & Cardona, E. F. (1982). Comunicacäo dominada. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Paz & Terra.
Bhabba, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.
Biltereyst, D., & Meers, P. (2000). The international telenovela debate and the contra-flow argument: A reappraisal.
Media, Culture and Society, 22, 393–413.
Boyd-Barrett, O. (1998). Media imperialism reformulated. In D. K. Thussu (Ed.), Electronic empires: Global media
and local resistance (pp. 157–176). London: Arnold.
Butler, J. (1998, January/February). Merely cultural. The New Left Review, 227, 33–44.
Chadha, K., & Kavoori, A. (2000). Media imperialism revisited: Some findings from the Asian case. Media, Culture
and Society, 22, 415–432.
Chang, B. G. (1996). Deconstructing communication: Representation, subject, and economies of exchange.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chicago Cultural Studies Group. (1992). Critical multiculturalism. Critical Inquiry, 18, 530–555.
Chow, R. (1993). Writing diaspora: Tactics of intervention in contemporary cultural studies. Indianapolis: Indiana
University Press.
Derrida, J. (1972). Positions. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dirlik, A. (1994). The postcolonial aura: Third world criticism in the age of global capitalism. Critical Inquiry, 20,
328–356.
Farhi, P., & Rosenfeld, M. (1998, October 25). American pop penetrates worldwide. The Washington Post, p. A1.
Fejes, F. (1981). Media imperialism: An assessment. Media, Culture and Society, 3, 281–289.
Friedman, J. (1997). Global crises, the struggle for cultural identity and intellectual porkbarrelling: Cosmopolitan
versus locals, ethnics and nationals in an era of de-hegemonisation. In P. Werbner & T. Moddod (Eds.),
Debating cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of anti-racism (pp. 70–89). London:
Zed Books.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Avon.
García-Canclini, N. (1989). Culturas híbridas: Estratgegias para entrar y salir de la modernidad [Hybrid cultures:
Strategies for entering and leaving modernity]. Mexico City, Mexico: Grijalbo.
García-Canclini, N. (1990). Cultural reconversion (H. Staver, Trans.). In G. Yúdice, J. Franco, & J. Flores (Eds.),
On edge: The crisis of Latin American culture (pp. 29–44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gilroy, P. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and double consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Gómez-Peña, G. (1996). The new world border: Prophecies, poems and loqueras for the end of the century. San
Francisco: City Lights.
Hale, C. (1999). Travel warning: Elite appropriations of hybridity, mestizaje, antiracism, equality, and other
progressive-sounding discourses in highland Guatemala. Journal of American Folklore, 112, 297–315.
Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post-structuralist debates. Critical Studies
in Mass Communication, 2, 91–114.
Hall, S. (1986). On postmodernism and articulation: An interview with Stuart Hall, edited by Lawrence Grossberg.
Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10, 45–60.
Hall, S. (1991a). The local and the global: Globalization and ethnicity. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, globalization
and the world-system: Contemporary conditions for the representation of identity (pp. 19–40). London:
Macmillan.
Hall, S. (1991b). Old and new identities, old and new ethnicities. In A. D. King (Ed.), Culture, globalization and the
world-system: Contemporary conditions for the representation of identity (pp. 41–68). London: Macmillan.
Hall, S. (1992). Cultural studies and its theoretical legacies. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P. Treichler (Eds.),
Cultural studies (pp. 277–294). New York: Routledge.
Hall S. (1996). When was the post-colonial? Thinking at the limit. In L. Curti & I. Chambers (Eds.), The
postcolonial question (pp. 242–260). New York: Routledge.
Hannerz, U. (1987). The world in creolization. Africa, 54, 546–59.
Hegde, R. S. (1998). A view from elsewhere: Locating difference and the politics of representation from a
transnational feminist perspective. Communication Theory, 8, 271–297.
Huntington, S. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Touchstone.
Hutnyk, J. (1997). Adorno at Womad: South Asia crossovers and the limits of hybridity-talk. In P.
Werbner & T. Moddod (Eds.), Debating cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of anti-racism
(pp. 106–138). London: Zed Books.
Joseph, M. (1999). Introduction: New hybrid identities and performance. In M. Joseph & J. N. Fink (Eds.),
Performing hybridity (pp. 1–24). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Joseph, M., & Fink, J. N. (Eds.). (1999). Performing hybridity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kapchan, D. A., & Strong, P. T. (1999). Theorizing the hybrid. Journal of American Folklore, 112, 239–253.
Kavoori, A. P. (1998). Getting past the latest “post”: Assessing the term “post-colonial.” Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 15, 195–202.
Knox, R. (1850). The races of men: A fragment. London: Renshaw.
Kolar-Panov, D. (1996). Video and the diasporic imagination of selfhood: A case-study of the Croatians in
Australia. Cultural Studies, 10, 288–314.
Kraidy, M. M. (1999). The global, the local, and the hybrid: A native ethnography of glocalization. Critical Studies
in Mass Communication, 16, 456–476.
Laclau, E. (1977). Politics and ideology in Marxist theory. London: New Left Books.
Lancaster, J. (1998, October 27). Barbie, ‘Titanic’ show good side of the U.S. The Washington Post, p. A1.
Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1990). The export of meaning: Cross-cultural readings of Dallas. London: Oxford University
Press.
Martín-Barbero, J. (1993). Communication, culture and hegemony: From the media to mediations. London: Sage.
Mattelart, A. (1994). Mapping world communication: War, progress, culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Mattelart, A. (1998). Généalogie des nouveaux scénarios de la communication. In J. Berdot, F. Calvez, & I.
Ramonet (Eds.), L’Après-Télévision: Multimédia, virtuel, Internet. Actes du Colloque ‘25 images/seconde’.
Valence, France: CRAC. Retrieved December 31, 1998, from http://www.monde-
diplomatique.fr/livre/crac/21.html
McClintock, A. (1992). The angel of progress: Pitfalls of the term “post-colonialism.” Social Text, 31/32, 1–15.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mishra, V., & Hodge, B. (1991). What is post(-)colonialism? Textual Practice, 5, 399–414.
Miyoshi, M. (1993). A borderless world? From colonialism to transnationalism and the decline of the nation-state.
Critical Inquiry, 19, 726–750.
Moore-Gilbert, B. (1997). Postcolonial theory: Contexts, practices, politics. London: Verso.
Morley, D. (1980). The “nationwide” audience. London: British Film Institute.
Morley, D. (1994). Active audience theory: Pendulums and pitfalls. Journal of Communication 43(4), 13–19.
Morley, D., & Chen, K. H. (Eds.). (1996). Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies. New York: Routledge.
Naficy, H. (1994). The making of exile cultures: Iranian television in Los Angeles. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Oliveira, O. S. (1995). Brazilian soaps outshine Hollywood: Is cultural imperialism fading out? In K. Nordenstreng
& H. Schiller (Eds.), Beyond national sovereignty: International communication in the 1990s (pp. 116–
131). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Parameswaran, R. (1997). Colonial interventions and the postcolonial situation in India. Gazette, 59, 21–42.
Parameswaran, R. (1999). Western romance fiction as English-language media in postcolonial India. Journal of
Communication, 49(3), 84–105.
Pieterse, J. N. (1994). Globalisation as hybridisation. International Sociology, 9, 161–184.
Rogers, E., & Antola, L. (1985). Telenovelas: A Latin American success story. Journal of Communication, 35(4),
24–35.
Rosaldo, R. (1995). Hybrid cultures: Strategies for entering and leaving modernity [Foreword]. (S. López & E.
Schiappari, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rosenfeld, M. (1998, October 26). Malaysians create hybrid culture with American imports. The Washington Post,
p. A23.
Said, E. (1994). Culture and imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.
Shohat, E. (1992). Notes on the “post-colonial.” Social Text, 31/32, 99–113.
Shome, R. (1996). Postcolonial interventions in the rhetorical canon: An “other” view. Communication Theory, 6,
40–59.
Shome, R. (1998). Caught in the term “post-colonial”: Why the “post-colonial” still matters. Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, 15, 203–212.
Sinclair, J. (1990). Neither West nor Third World: The Mexican television industry within the NWICO debate.
Media, Culture and Society, 12, 343–360.
Sinclair, J., Jacka, E., & Cunningham, S. (Eds.). (1996). Peripheral Vision: New patterns in global television.
London: Oxford University Press.
Slack, J. D. (1996). The theory and method of articulation in cultural studies. In D. Morley & K. H. Chen (Eds.),
Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies (pp. 112–127). New York: Routledge.
Spivak, G. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. (1997). The many faces of imperialism. In P. Golding & P. Harris (Eds.), Beyond cultural
imperialism: Globalization, communication, and the new international order (pp. 49–68). London: Sage.
Straubhaar, J. (1991). Beyond media imperialism: Asymmetrical interdependence and cultural proximity. Critical
Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 29–38.
Stross, B. (1999). The hybrid metaphor: From biology to culture. Journal of American Folklore, 112, 254–257.
Tracey, M. (1985). The poisoned chalice? International television and the idea of dominance. Daedalus, 114, 17–56.
Truehart, C. (1998, October 27). With popularity come pitfalls. The Washington Post, p. A19.
Tufte, T. (1995). How do telenovelas serve to articulate hybrid cultures in contemporary Brazil? The Nordicom
Review, 2, 29–35.
Van der Veer, P. (1997). The enigma of arrival: Hybridity and authenticity in the global space. In P.
Werbner & T. Moddod (Eds.), Debating cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of anti-racism
(pp. 90–105). London: Zed Books.
Waxman, S. (1998, October 26). Hollywood tailors its movies to sell in foreign markets: Studios say ‘ethnic’ films
are not popular overseas. The Washington Post, p. A1.
Werbner, P. (1997). Introduction: The dialectics of cultural hybridity. In P. Werbner & T. Moddod (Eds.), Debating
cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of anti-racism (pp. 1–26). London: Zed Books.
Werbner, P., & Moddod, T. (Eds.). (1997). Debating cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of
anti-racism. London: Zed Books.
Young, R. (1995). Colonial desire: Hybridity in theory, culture and race. New York: Routledge.