The discourse on hybridity is as complicated as is it controversial. From the popular literature, one gets the impression that hybridity has been received and rejected in equal measure. This paper essentially draws upon the arguments flouted by Stonequist and Stuart in their pieces of work. This paper shall address the questions how the idea of hybridity has been understood in relation to the concept of race and consider the related imagined and conceptualized notions as to hybridity. To that extent, the arguments by the aforementioned scholars is authoritative and sufficient.
Stonequist perceives hybridity as the product of mixed and interracial relations. He relates hybridity to that product that cannot necessarily identify with one particular race. This is manifested in the manner of speech, thought and mannerisms. In a sense, Stonequist seems to argue that hybridity is that result that occurs when a given people cannot be associated entirely and or substantially with the stereotypes typically attributed to a given race. However, this explanation he associates to the societal perception and evaluation of hybridity. This paper presupposes that the concept of hybridity should be perceived from the context of lack of a definite and determinate race. It is captures a people who fall in the intermediate.
According to Stonequist, he believes there are no pure races. He asserts that the hybrids are just the conspicuous people who failed either to assimilate socially or amalgamate biologically. In that vein, he argues, hybridity is the result that happens when a people cannot easily identify with one particular race. However, Stonequist goes further to appreciate the occurrence of the new race. He explains and even provides empirical evidence as to the development of the new races. These new races are actually hybrids and are hence a product of hybridity. Some of the examples adduced include the Eurasians in India, the Mullatoes in America and the Cape Colored in South Africa. He observes the fact that hybridity could result through both societally acceptable ways such as sanctioned marriages and societally disapproved means such as illegal unions. It is this paper’s postulation that these components that sum up to form new races are in essence the products of hybridity. All the same, the new races should be perceived as being legitimate and are not in any way be considered of lesser races from the initial races.
Stuart, on the other hand, uses the idea of cultural identity to explain the notion of hybridity in the context of races. He identifies the dichotomy that suffices in the concept of cultural identity. While the first limb considers the historical perspective, the other considers the current, the past and the future cultural state of affairs in deciphering the concept of cultural identity. Amid the issues raised by Stuart, what is compelling is the fact that hybridity may bring about cultural differences which in turn influence cultural identity. The people who are not able to identify themselves with a particular race in terms of cultural practices and identities form the hybrids hence the concept of hybridity.
Works Cited
Stonequist, Everret. "The Racial Hybrid." Ifekwunigwe, Jayne O. 'Mixed Race' Studies: A Reader. New York: Routledge, 2004. 65-68.
Stuart, Hall. "Cultural Identity and Diaspora." Rutherford , Jonathan. Identity: community, culture, difference. London: Lawrence & Wishar, 1990. 222-237.
