Julia Chavez Trini Susuico
Rachel Applebaum Ashley Aguiar
Definition
The word hybrid is used throughout history to refer to animal and plant half-breeds. It also has meaning in the Greek word hubris to mean an “outrage against nature” rooted in historical beliefs from the Old Testament that breeding between animals was “an immoral perversion”. From Shakespeare onward, the idea of hybridity formed into an idea that plants might cross natural boundaries and was applied to gardening to generate literary metaphors of violation among sexual behaviors and to see outcomes that challenged the tenet of the uniformity of species. Hybridity was then referred to a social phenomena that mix elements of society previously thought to be “naturally” separate among classic and contemporary language to combinations of public and private spheres. In this case, the term is used to refer to problematic or inauthentic combinations of plants, humans, animals, or social interactions (Rudy).
There is a difference between organic or unintentional hybridity compared to the conscious or intentional hybridity. The conscious form is seen as “artistic” and “systematic” while the unconscious is referred to as “mute and opaque” yet “profoundly provocative”(Depoe). Hybridity has minimally been developed as an analytic concept so understanding the implications and complexity of hybridity contributes a critical lens to natural communications research in the future. Natural and nature in this context refers to the idea of “purity” in the sense that the plants and organisms have been untouched by humans and mate on their own accord due to their DNA and unique mating patterns.
Context
The term hybridity originates from the field of biology. Hybridity began to be used as a term in 1829. There was an increase of usage through 1839 then a slightly steady increase in 1840. The term became popular and spiked in useage in 1860 after years of being used almost 220 times less. Throughout time, hybridity broke away from it’s roots in biology and began to be used in several other areas of academia. Hybridity as a concept is not new, the first “famous” usage of it was by Charles Darwin regarding his cross-fertilization experiments with plants. When viewed through a biological lense (human race wise), hybridity had a bad rap, in ancient societies hybridity meant a mix between races and social classes. Studies involving hybridity use both global and local levels to set guidelines for continuous development. (Forsyth)
The biggest opposers to hybridity were critics of the ancient world. In today’s society however, the term is used to describe inauthentic combinations, as stated in the description section above. It is used as a term more openly among scientists rather than those who specialize in other areas. There is more of an openness and willingness to use the term in because of the nature of the definition within the context of scientific areas.
Critique
As hybridity suggests, the relationship between humans and nature is a critical point of discussion. But what exactly is nature? Some claim that nature is, “not simply a physical entity but a repository of meaning,” illustrating there is no divide between humans and nature (Wapner). People differ in their views of nature, what is sacred, and what can be used for consumption. This difference in views stems from different cultures, upbringing, and religions. When the argument of hybrid nature is present, it defines nature as simply a social construct and the change in nature is simply where, “certain understandings of nature have changed” (Wapner). Interpretations of nature differ; while some place significant meaning upon it and where peace and many lessons for life lie, others, “refuse to endow nature with moral worth because it operates according to necessity rather than freedom” (Wapner). Many environmentalists claim that humans, who are endowed with reason and moral judgements, are the dominant species in which they can claim, modify, and regulate nature. This argument stems from the claim that human advancements in technology, population growth, and usage of non-renewable resources bridge the gap between humans and nature. It is debatable if there is a gap at all, “Indeed, there is no longer a dividing line between ‘earth systems’ and ‘human systems’” (Wapner).The other side argues that humans must work around nature, which has sacred values by the,” preservation of individual species,” viewing it as a,” moral obligation of people and society,” by, “re-determining moral and legal status of animals…trees, forests, and all other objects found in nature” (Matijević). This definition of nature is problematic in that it defines a harsh separation where the only involvement is that of protection. This standpoint allows no room for gapping the separation. In theory, differing views of nature have a problematic implication that hybridity must address the future while satisfying the opposing sides definition. The movement would need international support, thus a call for the reasoning behind nature from all ranges of the spectrum as either needing modification or incorporation, along with using it to aid the movement’s progression into one of international effect.
The claim that it is impossible to separate humans from nature and instead encourage a more symbiotic relationship resonates with contemporary thought, as well as using the technological developments to either reverse or prevent damage. This addresses the fact that technology is and will be advancing so long as humans are on earth. This trend has been consistent throughout time, and hybridity addresses technological advancements not as the problem but rather the solution. Humans have the capacity to develop many helpful technologies and are seen as, “the exceptional species entitled to shape nature as they see fit” (Wapner). Humans cannot just put the brakes on technology, and even if it were achieved it in one place, how can it be applied internationally? Instead of fearing technology, hybridity suggests using it in conjunction with nature instead of against it. A cohesion between the human realm and nature is the pathway in the future that must be investigated. Humans have already bridged the divergence between the two worlds and hybridity uses humans as an aid rather than as the destructive beings that have been the conventional view in the past.
Although hybridity addresses the issue of technology, it lacks sufficient information regarding the obstacles with economic and political platforms. The notion of pure nature points out that there is insufficient organizational power for the protection of wildlife. While there is no plan involving hybridity, the other side proposes simply adapting current organizations in which an “adequate monitoring system for monitoring state of nature is often missing”, and use it to encourage the human nature dichotomy (Matijević). This proposal of establishing surveillance on existing institutions has a much more concrete applicable ability as opposed to the path hybridity describes, “middle way through the dual ideals of naturalism and mastery, and thus for a politics beyond dualistic categories,” which is frankly ambiguous in application (Wapner). Besides abstract references of green technological advancements, there are not many applicable forms of approaching the current challenges that humans face using hybridity. It is hard to change people’s feelings and beliefs regarding the human nature dichotomy that is engrained into the current situation, where nature is viewed as the landscapes left untouched by humans. In societies where there is a synthesis between the two, hybridity will be a simple approach without delegitimizing the current relationships. But in nations who believe that nature, which can really depend on moral values, is something separate and distant from the human realm, will not be keen to accepting hybridity as a safe approach to the reduction of pollutants, consumption rates, and dematerialization. Some see nature as fragile, and in need of protection; a real world example is right here in the US where, “John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, 7 often considered as being father of American nature conservation movement… stimulated growth of public interest in preservation of everything that is natural, wild, and free” (Matijević). Their definition of nature in this case is, where humans do not reside and plants and animals are allowed to coexist without interference. This organization sees nature as something precious, where human interference should not reside. Hybridity is the exact opposite, arguing that humans should use positive interference to aid nature, same definition as above, in recovery. This large shift proves much controversy, where the movement calls for a change in ethical views and morals standards. This proves to be a tough platform to work with.
Conclusion
Hybridity mainly refers to crossbreeds of living beings that fall under categories within fauna or flora. The term “hybridity” originates from biology and was mainly used during Darwin’s cross fertilization experiments. Throughout history, the usage of hybridity has changed through the ideals within people of whether or not crossbred plants and animals are in this case “natural” and “pure”, which would mean that humans have not manipulated anything from the “natural” world. With that comes many critiques of the usage of hybridity. Those who strongly believe in keeping the species “natural” and untouched argue that the sacredness of the “natural” plants and animals are gone when hybridity comes into play. To make hybrids using plants and animals is an immoral thing to do and for that reason there are many who criticize the usage of hybridity. Another critique that is usually brought up is the technological advancements as well in the form that as long as technology continues to advance, then so does the usage of hybridity as well. With more technology, however the advancements are not clear, thus making the hybridity skeptical. Adding on to that, political and economic platforms would also be very unclear to withhold hybridity which is one of the reasons as to why many skeptics criticize the usage of hybridity.
Hybridity, as mentioned before, mainly speaks of the ideas that any plants and animals have been modified. However, every single day people consume genetically modified foods and in United States alone approximately, “70%” (“Genetically Modified Foods”) of the food that people eat are all genetically modified foods. Many environmentalists find a problem with this mainly because the side effects of genetically modified food include “potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing” (“Food Safety”). However, in the long run, many environmentalists and health scientists do not know the long term effects of consuming so many foods that are genetically modified. For that reason, environmentalists should be invoked by hybridity and should look more into how it affects humans and also animals who consume genetically modified foods. Whether or not hybridity affects humans in a negative or positive way, the ability to modify plants and animals has led to unforeseen developments that will continue to advance in the near future.
Reference List
Depoe, Stephen P. “Chapter 3.” The Environmental Communication Yearbook: Volume 3. Vol. 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. 49-55. Print.
Matijević, Dalia. 2015. “ETHICS OF INSTITUTIONAL NATURE PROTECTION: PROPOSAL FOR THE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURE PROTECTION ETHICS IN CROATIA.” Socijalna Ekologija 24, no. 2/3: 145-172. SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed March 24, 2017).
Forsyth, Timothy. “Science, myth and knowledge: Testing himalayan environmental degradation in Thailand.” Geoforum 27, no. 3 (1996): 375-92. doi:10.1016/s0016-7185(96)00020-6.
“Genetically Modified Foods.”Genetic Science Learning Center. University of Utah, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.
“Q&A: Genetically Modified Food.” World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2017.
Rudy, Alan P., and Damian White. “Chapter 13.” Critical Environmental Politics. By Carl Death. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2014. N. pag. Print.
Wapner, Paul. 2014. “THE CHANGING NATURE OF NATURE:ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS IN THE ANTHROPOCENE.” Global Environmental Politics 14, no. 4: 36-54. https://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed March 24, 2017).