Hybridity

Biologically, hybridity refers to the crossing of genes, but this term is a metaphorical trope describing the postcolonial position by referring to the merging of two socially, culturally, economically, or politically separate spheres or the blending of elements, characteristics, or traits from two different cultures. In relation to education, then, hybridity has come to be seen as a possibility for deconstructing dominant curricula and pedagogy and moving toward a socially just system of education.

Brian Stross, a theorizer of hybridity, notes that humans are categorizing animals. People tend to classify everything into distinct boxes with nonpo-rous borders. What happens with this type of classifying is that categories are established as pure and unchangeable. In addition, classifications are hierarchically arranged, with some categories established as dominant and others as inferior. In this way, categories tend to be created in terms of binaries such as good–bad, white–black, male–female, heterosexual–homosexual, and so on. In each of these categories, one is established as more powerful, more pure than its counterpoint.

Purity, however, is a falsity, and the development of categories is not an innate desire in humans, but one that is socially constructed. Nonetheless, the notion of purity can be established by the dominant group because of its power. Often the characteristics of the dominant group are normalized or naturalized and thus come to be accepted as universal. By continually categorizing and creating borders, the dominant group establishes a façade that appears pure, impenetrable, and static. These borders, however, are not impenetrable, and identity in these categories is not static. The dominant group constantly works to police borders to ensure that categories do not mix. This control can been seen to occur in schools, for example, with structures such as tracking and sorting where students from non-dominant groups are marginalized, pushed into lower tracks, or sorted for jobs in a lower socio-economic sector. In terms of curriculum, too, dominant cultures and ways of being have been presented as part of the accepted curriculum while subordinated groups have been ignored in textbooks and classroom content.

The hybrid, though, is a threat to the dominant group. Culturally speaking, hybridity refers to what happens with colonization or when dominant groups forced nondominant peoples to assimilate to dominant cultures. This metaphor applies to modern society as well. The hybrid, then, is someone who represents a mix of cultures and is expected to assimilate to dominant culture at the same time that he or she is never fully accepted into this culture. The hybrid is in a liminal state, [Page 458]then, and might not feel a sense of belonging to either culture. As a result, hybridity can result in feelings of double consciousness, as first described by W. E. B. Du Bois.

At the same time, however, hybridity opens up the possibility for change. Gloria Anzaldúa and Homi K. Bhabha argue that the creation of third spaces or borderlands where individuals and groups examine hybridity can help people understand how dominant society works to maintain power and can allow a space for the deconstruction of dominant ideologies. It is in this space in between these constructed categories and borders that people can look at historical, social, and cultural constructions of identity. It is also the place where people can begin to realize identity as something porous and unfixed rather than as static, essential, or pure. Also, it is in this space that people can deconstruct dominant society and understand that it is not monolithic. Hybridity can result in the creation of an in-between space to breakdown hierarchical dichotomies.

...