The model of hybridity describes an intercultural process in which a reorientation of an individual’s identity is achieved (cf. Gugenberger 2010, 68). The term hybridity derives from the Latin word hybrida „mongrel“ and assumes that individuals produce a newly constructed and thus third identity from their identity of origin and the identity of the host society (cf. Gugenberger 2010, 68). The hybridity model views the „speaker as a social actor“ (Gugenberger 2010, 68) who develops new varieties from the intertwining of two cultures and languages that go beyond discarding or preferring one language or culture (cf. Gugenberger 2010, 68).
Concept: Hybridity according to Bhabha
In 1994, Bhabha established a central concept of hybridity based on Foucault’s discourse theory (cf. Engel/ Lewicki 2005, 1). The basis of this concept is that a new identity can only emerge in a third space between two cultures (cf. Engel/ Lewicki 2005, 1). „For Bhabha, the subject is rather a knot and intersection of the languages, orders, discourses, and systems that permeate it, with all the perceptions, emotions, and processes of consciousness associated with them. His metaphor of the ‚knotted subject‘ thus shifts multiculturalism from a territorial notion to a person“ (Engel/ Lewicki 2005, 2).
History: The history of the term hybridity
The term hybridity was used in the 19th century in the context of ethnic heterogeneity and experienced a negative connotation. In the meantime, the concept of hybridity has a positive connotation (cf. Fludernik 2001, 12) and „functions […] as a key term for describing cultural diversity“ (Fludernik 2001, 12), which has a progressive character (cf. Fludernik 2001, 12). The speaker decision to use hybrid linguistic forms can be understood as a resistance against prevailing models of assimilation ideology and as a signal of the existing linguistic diversity of individuals (cf. Gugenberger 2010, 70).
Transfer to the present time
In the present, the phenomenon of hybridity is applied outside of the colonial context, for instance to investigate and describe the open identity concepts of migrants. Using the example of Muslim migrants in Germany and Europe, Foroutan/ Schäfer put forward the thesis that on an individual level new meta-narratives of origin and identity as well as cultural belonging are created as soon as people feel they belong to different cultural spaces (cf. Foroutan/ Schäfer 2009, 1 f.). Critics of the hybridity theory, on the other hand, express that migration processes as a whole would not lead to a fragmentation of the subject’s identity, which is why hybridization cannot be understood as a universal phenomenon (cf. Castro Varela 2015, 270 f.).
Distinction from hyperculturality
In contrast to the theory of hyperculturality, hybrid identity has a clear demarcation character. Bienfait describes this as social „juxtaposition and the constantly shifting, coalescing moment of identification“ (Bienfait 2006, 93). The process of ‚creating‘ one’s own culture within a peer group is thus a means against homelessness (cf. Foroutan/ Schäfer 2009, 1). There are disintegration processes, since complete integration in the country of arrival seems unattainable (cf. Foroutan/ Schäfer 2009, 1 f.).
Linguistics: How do hybrid varieties shape themselves?
Hybrid forms are extremely diverse in their linguistic expression. Minor linguistic modifications at the phonetic and prosodic levels, for example, can be achieved by the means of codeswitching. Likewise, a hybrid variety may involve the emergence of a new language (cf. Gugenberger 2010, 68 f.). Regarding the degree of hybridity, it should be noted that if a large part of the linguistic features, e.g. from the language of origin, is replaced by the language of the host society, there is a low degree of hybridity. However, as soon as approximately the middle of the two source languages is reached, it is a space without linguistic boundaries, in which none of the source languages can be determined as dominant. In this case, the third space is reached (cf. Gugenberger 2010, 69). The developed hybrid varieties can be passed on over generations as well as exist only temporarily (cf. Gugenberger 2010, 68).
Literature
Bienfait, Agathe (2006): Im Gehäuse der Zugehörigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS.
Castro Varela, Maria do Mar/ Dhawan, Nikita (2015): Postkoloniale Theorie – eine kritische Einführung. 2. Auf. Bielefeld: transcript.
Engel, Christine/ Roman Lewicki (2005): Konzepte von Interkulturalität. In: Engel, Christine/ Lewicki, Roman (Hrsg.): Interkulturalität. Slawistische Fallstudien. Bd. 12. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft: Slavica Aenipontana, 1–8.
Fludernik, Monika (2001): Hybridität. Theorie und Praxis. In: Polylog 8, 7–25.
Foroutan, Naika/ Schäfer, Isabel (2009): Hybride Identitäten – muslimische Migrantinnen und Migranten in Deutschland und Europa. https://www.bpb.de/apuz/32223/hybride-identitaeten- muslimische-migrantinnen-und-migranten-in-deutschland-und-europa?p=all [22.06.2018].
Gugenberger, Eva (2010): Das Konzept der Hybridität in der Migrationslinguistik. In: Ludwig, Ralph/ Schwarze, Sabine (Hrsg.): Sprache, Identität, Kultur. Bd. 8. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 67–92.