"On Hybrid Irelands: At Culture’s Edge — A Critique of Hybridity"
Guest Writer: Julie McCormick Weng
Thursday, April 12, 2012
posted under
Clair WIlls
,
David Lloyd
,
hybridity
,
Ireland
,
Julie Weng
,
Notre Dame
,
Terry Eagleton
by Unit for Criticism
Poster for "Hybrid Irelands: At Culture's Edge"
On Hybrid Irelands: At Culture's Edge--A Critique of Hybridity
Written by Julie McCormick Weng (English)
I had never attended a graduate student conference before, but my recent experience at Notre Dame University’s “Hybrid Irelands: At Culture’s Edge” conference may have me addicted to them. This three-day conference, held March 29-31, featured keynote lectures from three notable scholars: Terry Eagleton, Claire Wills, and David Lloyd.
The conference theme of hybridity first originated in biological studies, referring to mixtures in the body, but became popular in linguistics and postcolonial theory in the 1980s and 1990s. Postcolonial theorists such as Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha have used the term to expand notions of race and culture, noting ways these concepts affect identity formation and power relations—particularly imperial power structures. Mikhail Bakhtin also appropriated the idea to relate to his theory of polyphony (or many voices) in texts. In current critical developments, hybridity often describes reciprocal and mingling cultural exchanges as an effect of globalism.
This turn in theories of hybridity/ies constituted Eagleton’s opening keynote remarks. His broadly-themed lecture, sensationally titled “Against Hybridity,” opened with a claim that current criticism largely looks to the term “hybrid” as an affirmation. Hybridity carries a positive charge. It signals inclusivity, bringing what is marginal into the center and into a place of fuller meaning. Hybridity also functions as a goal for many practicing scholars. Literary scholars, for example, aim to enact hybridity through interdisciplinary practices in research and learning.
Papers at the conference represented hybrid disciplinary practices and/or revealed hybrid connections in content. My own paper, “John Eglinton: An Irish Futurist,” studied Eglinton’s 1898 essays, which detail his hope for technological objects to inspire literature in the forthcoming Irish Revival. I showed how his writings anticipate practices in Italian futurism. These practices form cosmopolitan material connections or “cosmo-material connections” as I call them, with inventions representing the materiality of modernity through the common user’s experience of them. A paper on another panel, Flicka Small’s “The Multiple Facets of Leopold Bloom,” exposed James Joyce’s inventive use of food to metaphorize deviancy through the subversion of food practices. On another panel, Jeremy Magnan’s paper, “‘Representations of the Irish Traveler in Horror,’ or Travelers, Miscegeny, and Cows, Oh My!” treated the doomed fate of the Irish traveler figure in contemporary Irish horror films. All of these papers pursued a productive way to integrate practices of hybridity into our scholarship.
Terry Eagleton at "Hybrid Irelands"
David Lloyd opened his lecture, “‘To Live Surrounded by a White Song’ or The Sublimation of Race in Experiment: On the Margins of Susan Howe,” with another challenge to hybridity. He commended the conference organizers’ decision to pluralize “Irelands” in the conference theme but recommended additional pluralization. Instead of “At Culture’s Edge,” Lloyd argued for a shift in the apostrophe so that the subtitle would read, “At Cultures’ Edges.” In pluralizing both “cultures” and “edges,” Lloyd pointed out our need to be aware of the many kinds and forms of plurality. In doing so he opened up the discussion of Irish texts and histories for new layers of meaning and modes of representations.
Poet Paula Meehan
In this round-table, Katie Conrad shared her frank beliefs on the job market for students working in Irish studies and other fields considered “marginal.” While some universities might deem Irish studies to be marginal, or perhaps unnecessary expertise, Conrad boasted that a strength for Irish studies candidates lies in the fact that their work is already “hybrid.” Universities look to maximize their investments by hiring faculty able to work in more than one field. As an Irish studies scholar, Conrad was able to “market” herself as a British modernist who also works in women’s and gender studies and queer theory. Unsurprisingly, Conrad’s discussion of job prospects sparked many questions and comments from graduate students.
Clair Wills’s provocative keynote lecture, “‘Turning a shade darker’: Hybridity, Race, and Population” noted, among many claims, the surprising language in 1950s Ireland surrounding Irish emigration. Her primary documents presented a negative mode of Irish self-representation, namely, the widespread belief that Ireland had lost the “robust” and vital part of the population to emigration, leaving behind a weaker and less skilled population. Her presentation sought connections between the dialogue about Ireland’s lack and loss, emigration, and constructions of Irish identity.
On the final day of the conference during a panel of closing remarks by keynote speakers and poets, she offered a final challenge toward the term “hybrid,” suggesting that we might look for a new term. In an off-the-cuff manner, she recommended “fusion” as a possible replacement though noted its complicated connection to nuclear weapons. Fusion, she argued, allows for creative forces to come together in a new way. This was demonstrated on a music panel she attended on the final day of the conference where Deirdre Ní Chonghaile’s paper, “‘Gabh’ Tí Phlunkett más maith leat country’: Tradition and Hybridization in Contemporary Conamara Music,” explored the influence of American country music on Western Irish folk music from the Gaeltacht. The fusion of musical styles and methods of storytelling illuminated new ways Irish music continues to evolve.
The conference concluded, as do all Irish studies conferences, with dinner and a visit to the pub, accompanied by Irish music and song. To everyone’s surprise, Terry Eagleton sang renditions of traditional Irish tunes to his own original and humorous lyrics—songs about dear “Willie Yeats” and “Jimmy Joyce.” Following Eagleton, Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill gifted us with an Irish language folk song. Attendee Aisling Cormack impressed the group by singing and fiddling. For a weekend themed after hybridity, it was, indeed, a hybrid and memorable way to end the conference.
5 comments:
Julie, this conference sounded like it was terrific and what a wonderful collection of speakers it had!
I'm interested in hearing your take on the terms "hybrid" and "fusion" and where you stand in relation to Eagleton's argument.
"Hybrid" may not be an automatically affirmative or ethical term (though it's certainly used that way in criticism) but would "fusion" necessarily remedy these particular problems that Eagleton points out? Does the possible inclusion of prejudiced or hateful positions change the way we view hybridity or mixture?
You know much more about hybridity than I do, so I'm interested to hear how your approach to the term has changed after the conference, or if you agree or disagree with any of the positions the keynotes took.
Does it make a difference to the fusion/hybridity debate that neither nuclear weapons nor nuclear power generation use nuclear fusion but, rather, fission? The sun, however, is a fusion reactor.
Thanks, Tania, for your great comments. I have several thoughts on your questions.
I'm interested in what fusion implies, but I think I still prefer the term "hybrid." For me, fusion means more than two or more things joining together to form a single entity--It also connotes a kind of equal authority within the fused object, idea, process, language, culture, etc. It connotes equality in representation. While this sounds attractive in theory, I'm not sure that this is always desirable in scholarship or philosophies that we typically label "hybrid?" I think scholars are more interested in how hybrid practices in academic disciplines and in the forming of ideas, for example, inform one another--how things are in conversation rather than how they might be fused together into one voice, authority, or entity. Does this make sense? While I see merit in using the term fusion for certain studies, I prefer hybrid. Hybrid feels more flexible in terms of its use and effect.
Eagleton's talk affirmed obvious connections I hadn't made, noting the ethical stakes of totally affirming things hybrid. What are the stakes of affirming hybridity (which he discussed), but in opposition, what are the stakes of refusing it (which he didn't discuss)? What do you think?
Thanks again, Julie, for this glimpse of a conference I wish I had been at.
Did E. actually urge refusing hybridity or simply urge recognition that not everything hybridized was necessarily good?
E did note uses of hybridity, however, he didn't speak of it in terms of what would be lost without it. It was a passing thought/question I had after the talk.
Post a Comment