The Hybrid Metaphor: From Biology to Culture Author(s): Brian Stross Source: The Journal of American Folklore, Vol.

112, No. 445, Theorizing the Hybrid (Summer, 1999), pp. 254-267 Published by: American Folklore SocietyAmerican Folklore Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/541361 Accessed: 23/08/2010 13:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois and http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folk. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and American Folklore Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of American Folklore.

http://www.jstor.org

BRIAN

STROSS

The Hybrid Metaphor FromBiologyto Culture

This articleintroduces briefly and discusses few conceptual a considerations common to and cultural and examinesthe biological as hybridity biological concept "hybrid of vigor" it canbe applied thecultural to realm hybridity, this of illustrating witha hybrid form of communication cyberspace. notionof a hybridity in The cycleis introduced, alongwith in the cycle a hybrid becomes purebred thenparentof another a and whereby stages form hybrid.

ANDULTRA-SOFT. cottonandsuede If FABRIC STRONG IS hada baby,this "THESPECIAL would be it!": So says a recent newspaper advertisementfor sportswear.Whoever wrote the ad mated biology with culture to create and describethe hybrid cloth. This cultural hybrid between cotton and suede has no name yet, but one day it might. It may have neither cotton nor suede in its composition, but it has implicitlybeen given these purebred parents, and it has been perceived as a hybrid form by someone. Perhaps, once named, it will one day become the purebrednomenclaturalparent of is another hybrid. The word hybrid generally used today to refer to several kinds of heterogeneous in origin or composition. things, all of which are abstractly with its somewhat abstract Our word hybrid meaningshas ratherconcrete origins. In was Latin the hibrida the offspringof a (female)domestic sow and a (male)wild boar. has The semantic range of the word hybrid expanded in more recent times to include the offspringof a mating by any two unlike animalsor plants.The culturalhybrid is a metaphoricalbroadeningof this biological definition. It can be a personwho represents the blending of traitsfrom diverseculturesor traditions,or even more broadlyit can be a culture, or element of culture, derived from unlike sources; that is, something heterogeneous in origin or composition. While some pejorativeconnotationsstill cling as to the word hybrid, can be seen in such descriptiveterms as half-breed, mutt, half-caste, and so on, the concept is here consideredin just the opposite light. mongrel, I will introduce and briefly discussa few of the paradigmatic conceptual considerations common to biological and cultural hybridity and then examine one of the relationships linking biological to cultural notions of hybridity. Specifically, I ask whether the biological concept of hybridvigor (heterosis)can be appliedto the cultural
at Brian Stross is Professor Atthropology the University Texasat Austin of of Folklore 112(445):254-267. Copyright ? 1999, American Folklore Society. Journalof American

Stross, The HybridMetaphor

255

realm of hybridity. The answer provided is that it can, establishing the relevance of classification and context (or environment) to the hybrid, and this answer is given concrete realization through an example of hybridity in cyberspace. Finally, the importance of classification is implicitly reiterated by a consideration of what can be called the "hybridity cycle," in which a hybrid form transforms itself into a "pure" form prior to helping generate another hybrid. This cycle is dependent on naming and conceptual contrast, and thus on classification, for its existence. Perhaps it is already clear to the reader that classification provides the basis for, as well as the justification of, the notion of hybridity and all things considered to be hybrids. The human being is sometimes referred to as a classifying animal, and indeed our very survival depends on our ability, usually quite out of awareness, to divide and organize the welter of information that we perceive about our environment into classes of things so that we can treat one thing like another that we perceive, or believe, to be in the same class. We also appear to have a more conscious drive to classify, one that is especially well developed in taxonomists perhaps, but it is a drive that we all share, as evidenced in our use of names, both proper and common. The drive is strong enough that when it is difficult fitting things into specific categories we become aware of the constructed (as opposed to discovered) nature of what we are doing and ultimately of all classifications. Some would say that although cultural categories are thus constructed, categories in nature are actually out there and that the only social process involved lies in our attempts to find out and properly name the real natural categories that truly exist. But in fact, whether or not natural categories exist, our named categories are all socially constructed. This characterization of classification and the approach taken here to hybridity find common ground in the work of Boas on the arbitrary and perspectival nature of classificatory systems, work dealing with race, language, culture, and even seawater (1911, 1948). Folklorists are as aware as anyone of the constructed aspect of classification systems and are quite familiar with metaphor and its utility in constructing models of reality that simplify by creating redundancy as well as through their heuristic properties. Whereas notions of cultural hybridity derive from prior concepts of biological hybridity by means of metaphoric extension and through analogies founded on the metaphor, it is through classification that we can hope to bridge biology and culture in understanding how legitimate the metaphor might be and how many points of analogical similarity can be adduced.

A Paradigmatic Model of HybridityConcerns

The difference between the biological hybrid and the cultural hybrid is perhaps not as great as one might at first think. Even biological models are socially constructed, after all. But there is a difference, if only because biology is not culture; so words must be selected with prudence, and concepts contemplated carefully, to avoid confusing conclusions drawn from one arena with those applicable to the other. One way to embrace biological and cultural hybridity together, and to sample them at analogous loci, is to focus in turn on different components of hybridization: first on the hybrid itself; then on its parents; focusing next on the relations between the hybrid

256

Journalof AmericanFolklore112 (1999)

and its parents;then on the relationsbetween the hybrid and its environment;next on and the mechanismsby which parentsproduce hybridoffspring; focusing finallyon the hybridizationcycle itself, a cycle in which purebredparentsproduce the hybridthat in time becomes a purebredparent, againto mate with another in the production of yet another hybrid. The topics subsumed as relevant to each of these components of hybridizationserve thus as individualindexes of the aptnessand utility of the cultural analogyto biological hybridity(Table 1).

Focus HybridOffspring
Focusing on the hybrid itself (the result of hybridization), one can describe or measureits qualities.Topics such as heterogeneityand hybridvigor fit well within the

purviewof thisfocus.
Biologically, heterogeneity refers to genetic heterozygosity (different variants of genes occupying the same location on correspondingchromosomes), which is much
easier to imagine than to measure. Heterozygosity is in essence variability, and variability generally can be seen as potential for adaptation to new circumstances. Culturally, heterogeneity is more difficult to describe, define, and measure, but here, too, heterogeneity of relevant elemental factors contributed by the "parents" is the hypothetical norm for the ideal hybrid. Here, too, other things being equal, it would seem that variability and variation allow for greater adaptability. While recognizing that biological and Table 1. A paradigm of focal hybridity concerns and the topics they imply.
Focus 1. Focus on the hybrid itself, including description or measurement of its qualities. Topics heterogeneity, hybrid vigor

2. Focus on the parents of the hybrid and their homogeneity (purity),boundaries qualities. and and 3. Focus on relations of hybrid and parents and tracking hybridity ancestry, hybridity belonging, mediation of their respective qualities. 4. Focus on relations of hybrid and the environment in which the hybrid is created and develops. 5. Focus on hybridization process and mechanisms by which hybrids are brought about. mechanisms mating,invention, (breeding: hybridizing learning) borrowing, environmental hybrid facilitators, vigor

6. Focus on cycle of hybridity from "hybrid" of birthof hybrid,namingthe hybrid,refinement hybrid, with contrasting with contrast another to "pure" form (from heterogeneity to "mating" category, form, category purebred homogeneity), to parenting a new hybrid. Note how in time the hybrid offspring of two divergent "pure" strainscomes to be (seen as) more legitimate and "purer"itself as it adaptsto its environment, becoming conventionalized and more homogeneous, until it is finally perceived and defined by social construction as "pure" enough to interbreed with other purebreds.

Stross, The HybridMetaphor

257

cultural heterogeneity are only imperfect analogues, it appears that the notion of heterogeneity can nonetheless be usefully extended from the biological realm to the cultural, and it is heterogeneity that most efficiently characterizes the nature of the hybrid. Hybrid vigor, or heterosis, is a phenomenon well known to plant and animal breeders. It refers to the empirically observed phenomenon of increased vigor or capacity for growth often displayed by hybrid animals or plants (Baker 1965:83-88; Brittanica1979, 1:364 and 8:817). The hybrid maize industry, for examEncyclopaedia is based on hybrid vigor caused by crossing inbred strains of maize, which has ple, greatly increased productivity in the corn belt of the United States. The mule is a good example of an animal hybrid. Offspring of a male jackass and a female horse, the mule is large, hardy, vigorous, and strong, able to withstand hardships and working conditions too severe for other pack and draft animals. It displays hybrid vigor. The natural question here is, In addition to animals and plants, can the notion of hybrid vigor apply also to cultures, discourse genres, languages, and other cultural phenomena? I argue below, in discussing the fourth focus, on relating the hybrid to its environment, that the answer is yes. In addition to increased vigor, plant and animal breeders have noticed increased growth rate, size, fertility, or yield of a hybrid organism over those of its parents, which differ genetically from one another and which tend toward homozygosity (genetic sameness at the same locations on corresponding chromosomes) for relevant traits. These breeders exploit the phenomenon of heterosis by mating different purebred organisms with specific desirable traits. First-generation offspring not infrequently demonstrate, in greater measure, the desired characteristics of both parents. Interestingly enough, if the hybrids are then mated together, this "vigor" decreases in succeeding generations (though not below the level of the individual purebred parents), so the desired traits can be maintained only by crossbreeding the parental lines over and over again (EncyclopaediaBrittanica 1979, 14:499-500; Schery 1972:415). A question that arises from this phenomenon as well is, If hybrids that are mated together decrease in "vigor" (correlative to an increase in homogeneity), does this imply that a similar metaphorical decrease would apply also in the cultural domain? Biologically, cross-pollinated species are naturally hybrid (heterozygous, more heterogeneous) for many traits, and they tend to lose vigor as they become purebred (more homozygous, homogeneous at specific chromosome locations). Self-pollination tends toward homozygosity. Heterozygosity makes for more variation and thus probably more adaptability. One can see how each of these terms might be useful metaphors in the cultural domain: "cross-pollination" of genres or of cultures, "self-pollination" or "purity" of genres or of cultures, "variation" within genres or cultures. If the analogy between biological and cultural holds up, it would follow that increasing the "mating" of hybrids together would theoretically increase cultural homogeneity in the offspring and so might be seen to decrease the potential for adaptability and, in a very subjective sense, the vigor, when compared to the original hybrid form. However, the analogy breaks down because biological mating is different from cultural procreation. There is no limit on the number of traits or features that can be generated in a cultural hybrid form; the biological hybrid has only two possible

258

Folklore112 (1999) Journalof American

alternativesat any given gene locus and has only a limited number of chromosomes. Moreover, adaptationto new contexts can be so much fasterin the culturaldomain. In short, increasedhomogeneity (generallynot as adaptiveas heterogeneityin a changing environment) and a decrease in vigor are not a necessaryoutcome of hybrid forms in "interbreeding" the culturaldomain.

Focus Parent Purebred

Insteadof focusing on the hybrid "offspring" itself, one can look at the qualitiesof the parentsof the hybrid, consideringthen the associatednotions of homogeneity (or "purity") and boundary. Ideally the parents of a hybrid are individually internally homogeneous and differ in composition from one another. Crossing "pure" cultural traditionsyields hybrids,just as does crossing "pure" biological breeding stock, and ultimately the "parents" in these crossings are individual organisms or individual culturalfeaturesmanipulatedby individualpeople. The likelihood of progeny exhibiting heterosis(hybridvigor) when plantsor animalsare bred increaseswith increasingly different "pure" parents. In biological terms "purity" results from breeding stock "isolation"(or "inbreeding"), leadingto biological homozygosity (or genetic homogeIn culturalterms, "purity"resultsfrom "refinement"or "conventionalization" neity). of a tradition-processes sometimes assistedby authoritarianism, small community by size, and by a selection for speed in adapting to new environments-and implies with cultural within the culturaltradition,a condition associated minimizing variability homogeneity. Purein this context means relativelymore homogeneous in character(homozygous in biological terms), having less internal variation. Hybrid,the opposite, is of course more heterogeneous in character,having more internalvariation.One might say that there are no truly "pure"forms, completely homozygous (biologically)or completely and perhapsnever have been. Thus everyhomogeneous in composition (culturally), thing is a "hybrid"of sorts.Yet the term has both utility and meaningfor most of us. It may not survive close or philosophicalscrutiny,but it is quite adequatefor communiwith the realizationthat we constructthe notion of catingin generalterms,particularly purity. Moreover, the empiricalobservationof hybrid vigor appearsto render quite meaningfuland with a high degree of consensusthe culturalconstructionof the notion of "purebred."Humans are remarkably adept at subjectivelydetecting and referencing degreesof "purity"(or homogeneity)-far more so than they are capableof measuring consensus.And so it is thatwe in any objective sense-and sometimeswith remarkable can talk about it and believe that we know what we and others mean;but we can also get quite confused when it comes down to objectifyingthe notion of purity. Boundaries also pertain to a focus on the parents of the hybrid. The topic of boundaries includes boundary creating and maintaining mechanisms and boundary crossing. The biological hybrid is a cross between different "strains,races, varieties, species, or genera" of animals or plants, indicating a range of degrees of difference which the parentscan or must exhibit and therefore implying the existence of upper and lower boundaries for that range. Below one boundary the parentswill not be different enough from one another to produce a hybrid. Biologically, a white dwarf

Stross, The HybridMetaphor

259

floppy-eared rabbitmating with a spotted dwarf floppy-earedrabbitwill not produce progeny that would generallybe called hybridsbetween the two. These animalsare too similar. Nor would the progeny of an albino Kuna Indian of Panama and a nonalbino Kuna be called hybrids. The shifting nature of that lower boundarybecomes clear, however, when we note that some personswould referto as hybridthe child of an Italianand a German,while others would not. Some would opine that the child of a Europeanand an American Indian must be a hybrid, while others would say no. Different as a Creek Indian of North America might look from an Inca of South America, some would say that progeny produced by a Creek and an Inca would not be hybrids.Apparentlynot only do individualsdiffer in the judgments they might make of the hybrid or nonhybrid statusof variousother individuals,but thesejudgments also vary accordingto different situations. In the nonbiological arenaof culturethere aresimilarlower boundaries: mixture of a jazz funk with jazz fusion, for example,might not be seen as a hybridmusicalgenre, at least today. The "parents" too similar,so no intermediategenre is developed, and are one might add that this is because there is no context to support a need for it. When that context arisesthe hybridwill be recognized or created. Above the upper boundary,in the biological arena,the parentswill be too dissimilar to produce any offspringat all. An elephant,for example, cannot successfully mate with a canaryand produce progeny; and, culturally,who would think to unite an escalator with a baseballbat and call the resulta hybrid?Boundariesof these sorts are applicable to both biological and culturalhybridity,and of course they are culturallydefined in both kinds of cases.I am of the opinion that with respectto that part of the biological universethat includesnonhuman animalsand plantsthe boundariesare likely to be less fluid and shifting than when humans are involved. Even more fluid and capable of depending strongly on context are the upper and lower boundariesfor hybridsin the culturalrealm. Nevertheless,the extension from biological to the culturalof the notion of hybrid appearsto be both useful and justified with respect to having upper and lower boundaries.

to RelatingOffspring Parent, Hybridto Purebred

One can explore the relationship between (qualitiesof) the hybrid and (qualitiesof) the parents. Topics such as tracing ancestry,belonging, and mediation are relevant here. With this focus come the immediateand problematicquestionsof what and how much the hybrid gets from each "parent" how one could one measurethis. These and questionsare partof the topic of tracingancestry. Tracing ancestry,usuallyan importantendeavorin human societies, involves untanthe gling, sorting, and classifyring multiple strandsfrom which the hybrid cloth was woven. In the hybrid,heterogeneousin composition,offspring at leasttwo "parents," of how many and what kindsof characteristics derivefrom which parentbecome legitimate and questions.They are questionswhose answersarealways"constructed" usuallywith respect to some social considerations.How the purebreds and the hybrids independently construct their answersis often as interestingas the constructionproduced

260

Journalof AmericanFolklore112 (1999)

by the historian or by the anthropologist interested in diachronic change.' With nonhuman animals,tracingancestryappearsto be cut and dried,but it is not. A mule's parentage,for example, is usuallytracedto a female horse and a male ass.A hinny, on the other hand, comes from a male horse and a female ass.The naming of these hybrids according to gender distinctionsof the parentsis a clue, however, to the culturally constructed nature of hybrid ancestry.With many other animalsthe parentalgender distinction is not made in naming the hybrid. Similarly,hybridplantsare never, so far as I know, variablynamed dependingon the gender of the parents.Further,horsesand assesare classifiedas such in accordancewith a Linneansystem of biological classification that is totally constructed and based on a binomial system of nomenclature developed by the Swedish botanistCarolusLinnaeus(Carlvon Linne), and this system has even changed through time as biologists have constructeddifferentmeasuresfor classification developed differentnames for individualitems classified. and Recognizing an individualas a horse, an ass,or some hybridbetween the two is againa social matter, even when great consensusis possible. are With humans it is even more obvious that social considerations involved in the construction of named hybrid categories.For example, Mexican social categorization constructedin colonial times and framedas partof a biological model of interbreeding resulted in such complexities as a Salta atrdssocial category, which is the perceived hybridresultof a union between a Chinoman and an Indiawoman. The Chino man in man to an Espahiola woman, while the India turn is a hybrid resultof mating a Morisco mother in the primaryunion just mentioned was a "pure"categoryof Amerind. The Morisco that helped produce the hybrid Chino resulted from the union of a Mulato man and an Espafiolawoman, and that Mulato man was himself a hybrid result of uniting an Espaifolman with a Negrawoman. And this does not begin to tell the created interbreeding colonialMexico (Olien 1973: 94). in by complex storyof categories Regarding culture, ethnographersof Middle American societies during the 1930s and 1940s often attemptedto answerthe question of which components of the hybrid cultureswere Indian and which were derived from Spanishculture. This question fell into disfavor with the increasing popularity of the concept of syncretism, which included the notion that such cultures were totally new creations,interweaving the "parenttraditions"inextricably,relatingto Spanishand Indianparentculturesin ways analogous to the way salt relatesto sodium and chlorine-that is, having their own that characteristics aredifferentfrom those of their constituentsand not being reducible to the sums of their parts (Madsen 1967). Hybridity, which implies origins and of processes,and parentagemay yet resurrectsome of the old questionsof "parentage" the qualities of the parent in the cultures, however, finding new value in seeking reflected constructionsof the hybrid "daughter"cultures.Seeking origins and reconstructing the evolution of forms has, after all, major heuristic and even explanatory cultureson occasion find it rewarding value. Furthermore,membersof the "daughter" to (re)construct "stories" or traditions in which such parentage is discovered and disentangled,traditionswith which the ethnographermust deal. Hybridity or belonging is a sensitivesubject in some cases.The hybridmust belong somewhere eventually, and it must be classifiedsomehow. Does a mule belong to the horse category, to the jackass (domestic ass Equus asinus)category, to both, or to

Stross, The HybridMetaphor

261

neither?Hybrids, whether plants or animals,can be seen as belonging simultaneously to both (or more) parentsystemsor to neither. Sometimes they are assignedto one or the other of the parentson the basisof gender, power, or some other quality.Cultures, genres, and other productsof human "culture"are treatedin the same way by human classificatory perceptionsand constructions. It happens, for example, in some contexts that a child of "mixed race" can be ostracizedfrom both (sociallyconstructed)"racial" groupsto which the parentsbelong; in other contexts it can be just the opposite, however, in which case the hybrid (positively regardedfor some achievement or for some other positively valued attribute) is claimed by both groups. Sometimes it is one or the other of the groups to which the hybridbelongs. A "hybrid"born of aJewish mother and a Catholic fatheris, by Jewish traditionat least, consideredto be Jewish. If the mother is Catholic and the fatheris Jewish, however, the child will be consideredborn Catholic. The categoryto which a hybridis said to belong depends on whose perspectiveone takes. Mediation by a mediatorwould seem to imply hybridity.A mediator,for example, a mediatingbetween Spanishand Indianculturein Mexico, must be a hybridof a cacique sort in order to communicatewith both even if not for other reasons.Communicating with both implies possessingat least some characteristics both. It is at least in this of sense that a hybridcould be saidto mediate categoriesto which the "parents" belong.

to and Hybrid Environment Context Relating

A fourth focus relatesthe hybrid to the context in which it occurs. Because it is the context (or environment) that interactswith the hybrid to extinguish, maintain, or and modify its characteristics reproductiveability,it is alwaysimportantto specify the attributesor qualitiesof the context that are relevant. Environmentalfacilitatorsare attributes the environmentthat allow for or facilitate "birth"and maintenanceof of the a hybridform and shapethe direction of its development. It is my proposition that hybrids, particularlyin the cultural domain, are often created to fulfill environmentallysanctioned functions, to fill contextual needs, or to take advantageof opportunitiescreatedby new situations.If the environment changes, humansseem to devise new forms and formats,and with introducingnew parameters, introduction of something new to the environment, the environment is someevery how changed, with new parameters, new needs, and new opportunities.The hybrid forms that fill new niches in the environment are usually designed, and certainly selected for or against,on the basisof their exhibited characteristics, which are usually in this sense superiorto, characteristics either "parent."Otherof advantageousover, wise one or the other "parent"would probablyhave served the purpose. That is why hybridvigor, a topic as relevantto this focus as it is to the focus on the hybriditself,can be seen to fit both literallyin the biological domain and metaphorically the cultural in domain. An example should clarifywhat is meant here. Locatedsomewhere in cyberspaceon the Internet,one can find severaldifferentsorts of "chat"groups including the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) group and various MultiUser Dimensions (MUDs), Multi-User Dimensions Object Oriented (MOOs), and Multi-User SharedHallucinations(MUSHes), all of which are interestingexamples of

262

Journalof AmericanFolklore112 (1999)

relativelynew hybridsbetween written and spoken forms of communication. These hybridsbetween written and spoken communication operate in the environment of "cyberspace,"and to do this effectively they utilize abbreviations,"emoticons," and other symbols that communicate in fewer keystrokesand convey some of what voice inflection and facial expression normally do in a face-to-face conversation. These hybridsare in the processof refinement,and one can see numerousways in which they have been and are being constituted in adaptationto the cyberspaceenvironment. Moreover, they are amazinglysuccessfulhybrids,adaptingto the context of cyberspace almostto perfection. It may be worth describingjust a bit more about the operation of one example, the IRC chat rooms. The chattersthemselves are continuallyrefining and redefiningthe of actual operationalcharacteristics the hybrid programthat was written preciselyfor use in cyberspace.To chat on IRC, one adopts a nickname, fittingly abbreviatedto "nick," because time is at a premium in the effort to emulate oral face-to-face conversation in a written mode and at a distance, as cyberspacedictates. Additional economy is gained when the nick conveys something about the person's habits, gender, or interests(as,for example, with the nick Miss Dog-lover). One's nick is automaticallydisplayedon-screen when one chooses to join a particuin largroup of participants cyberspaceby "entering"a chat room, such as, for example, know immediatelythat someone has "Surfside Restaurant,"so all six to 20 participants can them and can react to this informationaccordingly.The participants register joined actions as well as words, so that on-screen one might see such things as "[hoss]ambles over to a chair and plops down in it, putting a friendlyhand on the new guest'sarm," perhapsfollowed by, "[Loreen]bringstrayw/ cookies of all kinds, offering one with a wry smile and a chuckle," and then maybe "[Miss Dog-lover] I'll take a chocolate chip, thanksLoreen." In addition to actions and discourse,one finds also the use of "emoticons"(a word with icons,employing the meaningsof both). Examplesinclude hybridcrossingemotions and other iconic representations of the smiling faces made with keyboard characters human faces exhibiting variousaffectivestates:for example, :<) :-) ;-}. Letter (and number) abbreviations (e.g., "18r"for "later") also help the "chat language"adaptto the requisitesof immediacy. The chat rooms have moderatorsand are monitored by "sysops"and "admins." A complete word-for-word transcript (includingactions)of a chat room's operation the time it is monitored by an individualcan be savedby that individual(Table during 2). Unlike a screenplay,another sort of hybrid between speech and writing that also sometimes resembles,the employs "actions"as well as dialogue which a chat transcript chat room "text" is interactive, like a multiparty conversation, and multilaterally emergent (i.e., nobody can know where it will go because the ongoing chat provides and thus modifies input). With chat groups, individualscan hide their real identitiesand take on new characteristics,nicks, and identities. "Role playing," as it is called, is something for which cyberspaceis ideallysuited. The IRC programis a hybrid communicative format,birthed into cyberspacefrom parentforms of written and spoken communicationand currentlybeing fashionedon a

Stross, The HybridMetaphor

263

Table 2. First of an eight-page IRC chat room log.

Fri Start: May29 09:33:401998 *** Now talking #iRoNiC in will terminated #iRoNiC topicis abusers havetheiraccounts on set by LiamOasis FriMay29 07:27:09 #iRoNiC topic *** ^bAdgIrL quit IRC (Pingtimeoutfor has
AbAdgIrL[j28.kchl6.jaring.my])

<Yobshogot>hello everyone <sU ITy> ahahahahah <sU ITy> denisonyou falldown kah *** PAC-MENhasquitIRC (Leaving) <'0}-MiC-> but she'scloserto me ma *** Az[oN]iC'is now known asAzo-away <'0}-DeN-> name1 personwho doesn'tsuckto u? <sUITy> no <'O)}-MiC-->eh??? <sU ITy> cannotlike that <'O)}-MiC-> i tot u dowanto b my fren *** IiLsAndiE quitIRC (Pingtimeoutfor has IiLsAndiE[stm-45-56.tm.net.my]) *** UnIqUeGaL has (5thNuT@j9.kchl6.jaring.my) joined#iRoNiC <sU ITy> dontwant <sU ITy> dontwant *** dee_dee(-diamond@stm-44-188.tm.net.my) left #iRoNiC has <sU Ty> no mood to sleep <'0 }-MiC--> JEEFF!

continuing basisto fit the multiple needs of the environment to which it is adapting. This ability to channel and amend a responseto environmentalneeds within a single generation is the reason one can say that heterosisor hybrid vigor appliesnot only to the biologicalprovenance of hybriditybut also to the cultural,while at the sametime it is something that sets the cultural hybrids apartfrom the biological ones (to which natural selection applies, leaving only those that have responded genetically in an mannerto the environmentto surviveand reproduce). appropriate It is tempting to generalizehere and assertthat culturalhybridsare usuallyfashioned with characteristics intended to allow them to respond optimally to environmental needs, and they are revised and refashionedas these needs dictate until they satisfythe culturalperceptionsof the developers,whether these perceptionsbe economic or ideological. Culturalhybridizationimplies a fertile and creativeresponseto environmental pressuresand opportunities, and one could go further and say that the hybridization itself engendersnew fertile and creativecontexts in which new things can come into being, at least by virtue of modifying the environment. Hybrid animalsand plants are not infrequentlymore hardy than their purebredprogenitors, and they also exhibit desirable characteristics. seems, too, thatwhen differentculturesor differentaspectsof It a culturemingletheirinfluences, efflorescence creativity an of often results. the example As of communicative hybrids discussed here illustrates,when something new in the environment either allows for or facilitates new means of exploiting the environmental

264

Journalof AmericanFolklore112 (1999)

potential, a hybrid form is createdto engage the needs and exploit that potential. The hybrid exhibits a close analogy to the hybrid vigor noted in biological reproduction, and it is almost necessarily in the culturaldomain, for if either (or any) of the parent so forms had been as successfulin exploiting the potential, then the hybrid would not have developed.

Mechanisms Hybridizing
One can examine and describe the immediate mechanisms by which hybrids are brought about. These include the processes of sexual reproduction, construction, borrowing, and learning, among others. It is here that we see some clear differences between biological and culturalhybridity,here that we see reasonsfor not immediately made in accepting conclusions drawn in one arenathat are based only on observations the other. Biologically, hybridsare createdthrough mating, or sexual reproduction,and usually involve only two parents. Through this process half of the father's set of paired chromosomes are combined with half of the mother's set to create the hybrid, according to the currentlyaccepted biological model (Hardin 1959). This process of genetic recombination along with mutation provides the genetic variation that is operatedon by naturalselection through the phenotype (the "visible"properties of an organism that have been produced through interaction of the genetic structureand the environment) of the hybrid and in specific environments. It bears repeatingthat any inferred models of this process and any classificationof the hybrid results of biological mating are social constructionsusuallydone on an ideologicalbasis. Cultural"mating"and hybrid production occur differentlyand in more ways than biological hybridization,and the culturalhybrid can have more than two "parents." Because of this the hybrid metaphor can be seen more clearly here as metaphor. Rather than through the sexual reproductionthat producesbiological hybrids,cultural hybrids are created through such processes as diffusion (or borrowing), invention, learning, culturalassimilation,and construction,among others. Human institutionsor activities that deliver these processes include trade (commerce), warfare (conquest), travel (tourism), education (school), marriage, friendships,ethnography, and other forms of social interaction.All of these promote heterogeneity,thus contributingto the production of hybridsand through them hybridity. Whereas a person's genetic heritage, her or his biological attribute,remainspretty much the same throughout the individual'slifetime, this is not the case with cultural We continue learningsuch things as our own languageand sometimesother attributes. languages as we mature. We continue learning other things as well while growing older, diversifyingand expanding what might be called our culturalrepertoire.With the right experiences in life, the relevantinput, we can become socioculturalhybrids ourselves,and of course we can also createhybridculturalartifacts. Biological evolution is consideredto be Darwinian, and thus acquiredcharacteristics fixed in the genetic makeup of an individual)are not (as opposed to characteristics inherited. Cultural evolution is more Lamarkian,thus involving the "inheritance" whereby the positive (through traditional transmission)of acquired characteristics,

Stross, The HybridMetaphor

265

attributesengendered by adaptationto new environments can be reproduced and multiplied voluntarily.The mechanics of hybridity,then, leading to differentkinds of evolutionary change constitute a major differencebetween the biological and cultural domains and are a largepartof the reasonfor the far greaterspeed with which cultures evolve. It is the area where biological notions of hybridityare not as appropriatefor extending to the culturaldomain.

Hybridity Cycle
Finally,one can also examine the largerdiachronicprocessof what could be calleda "cycle of hybridity": a cycle that goes from "hybrid" form, to "pure" form, to "hybrid"form; from relative heterogeneity, to homogeneity, and then back again to heterogeneity. We can investigateand document how over time the hybrid offspring of divergent "pure" strainscan come to be (seen as) more legitimate and "purer" themselvesby inbreedingor by adaptingto the environment,becoming conventionalized and more homogeneous, until finally "pure" enough to interbreedwith other purebreds(which are themselvesprobablyformer hybrids),thus beginning anew the cycle of hybridproduction. Biological hybrids, once enough of the same kind are created, can be inbred to develop the increasinghomogeneity and legitimacy that one day will be sufficientfor them to be called purebreds. For example, the Chinese foo dog, extinct by the beginning of the 18th century, must at one time have been a hybrid dog. But when Dutch tradersbrought them to England,they were considereda pure "breed"of dog, and when a few of them were crossedwith Englishbulldogs,a new hybridwas created, the pug. Currentlythe pug is its own breed of dog, and one can find many purebred pugs, with their squarebuilds,smallsize, short muzzles, and tightly curledtails. The stagesthus implied, which could be called "birthof the hybrid,""namingthe hybrid," and "refinementof hybrid"-that is, the process through which the initially more homogeneous through (perceivedas) heterogeneoushybridbecomes progressively such processes as adaptingto environment, adopting formats, adaptingconventions, creatingrules, generatingtraditions,and in the case of biological entities, inbreedingor "self-pollination"-contrast with another category by virtue of which the hybrid becomes a constructedpurebred,"mating"with a contrastingpurebredcategory, and so to the end of the cycle and beginning of another with the birth of a new hybrid. These stages can be seen in an example of culturalhybridity, too. By many, jazz is considered to be a hybrid music form created by crossing European and African musical traditionsin the new environment of the United States,where these different forms (or genres) encountered one another. By now, of course,jazz is consideredby many aficionadosto be a "pure"form that has itselfin combinationwith classical music engenderedthe hybridthat is often called "third-stream" music or "third-stream jazz." And jazz combined with rhythm and blues (or according to some, funk) has engendered "fusion"or "jazzfusion."The concept of"belonging" is clearlyevident here, for third-streammusic is certainly not claimed to be a kind of classicalmusic by the classicalcrowd, but jazz bufls are usuallywilling to claim it as a form ofjazz.

266

Journalof AmericanFolklore112 (1999)

Regarding one of the above stages of hybridity, naming the hybrid not just as a hybrid with pejorative epithets but with an actual name makes it more palatable, tending to give it a preliminarylegitimacy and even a kind of "purity"that can lead it sooner or later to take one of the "purebredparent" roles in engendering a new hybrid.While refinementof the hybrid (sometimesin adaptationto changed environmental requisites)is perhapsmore obviously importantin developing a "pure" type, "naming the hybrid"indicatessocietal recognition of the hybrid as a legitimate entity and constitutesa similarkind of facilitation.

Conclusion
An examination has been conducted of how apt the metaphoricalextension of the concept of hybridity from biology to culture might be. This was accomplished by consideringseveral topics associatedwith six differentconceptual foci associatedwith similarin the components of hybridity.Many of these topics proved to be analogically those subsumed under the first four both biological and culturaldomains,particularly foci (on the hybrid, on the parents, on relating hybrid to parents,on relatinghybrid to context) and under the sixth (on the hybridity cycle). In part this can be seen as relatedto the fact that most of what we call the biological domain and our interpretations of it are socially constructed,not to mention the fact that the whole notion of hybridity (biological and cultural)is socially constructedand interpretedalong ideological lines. In short, notions of heterogeneity, homogeneity, boundaries, ancestry, from belonging, mediation, and hybridvigor were found to be legitimatelytransferable the biological to the culturaldomains and valid concepts in both domains. Characteristic of all these notions in both domains is that they are variable,imprecise, and perspectival.Yet despite this, or maybe because of it, they are also well fitted for human thought, discourse,and communication of ideas. With the fifth conceptual focus of hybridity components, on the hybridization process,the underpinningsof the biological metaphorare not as closely mirroredin the cultural domain. The actual mechanismsof the hybridizationprocess, while roughly were seen to be different,with different analogous and terminologicallytransferable, ratesof responseto environmentalchange. I hope also to have pointed out above that there is a cycle of hybridity,the stagesof which are worth delineatingin more detail and exemplifyingwith fuller documentation at another time. It has also been noted here that the context or environment in which a hybrid is produced is so importantto interpretingthe meaning of the hybrid, as well as for shaping the form and destiny of the culturalhybrid, that it cannot be ignored. Moreover, the successof the hybridin occupying the environmentalniche to which it is adapted allows us to carry the biological concept of hybrid vigor quite and neatly over to the domain of culturalhybridityas an appropriate useful concept. The concept of the hybrid in a cultural sense, even considered in terms of the paradigmof multiple foci for investigationthat was outlined above, still fallsshort of being able to deal adequatelywith the empiricalas opposed to the constructedfactsof variation. There are after all no "pure" individuals,no "pure" cultures, no "pure" genres. All things are of necessity "hybrid."Of course we can construct them to be

Stross, The HybridMetaphor

267

and how to relatively "pure," in factwe do so, whichis precisely we manage get (new)
hybridsfrom purebredsthat are (former)hybrids.

Note
1At firstsight it may seem that the answer to the question "What traitsfrom whom?" might not always be constructed, appearing to be more relevant to the cultural domain while perhaps much less so in biological hybridity. Upon reflection, however, it becomes apparentthat the difference in "constructedness" between biological and cultural hybridity with respect to traitsand their sources may be relatively insignificantafter all. When one sees a child's face and says, for example, "She looks so much like her father,"it is clearly a comment and perhapsopinion that is constructed.The subjectivityinvolved in this evaluationin the biological domain is easy to see, and the traitsinvolved may be multiple, complex, and difficult to isolate. Taking a specific trait like eye color could seem less subjective and less "constructed," but our folk theories of how eye color is passedon are often differentfrom the theories that geneticistshave constructed and operate from to explain inheritance of phenotypic traits;and still we are dealing with constructed answers to biological questions regardlessof whose theory we are applying. Dealing with humans might be more obviously a matter that would involve social considerationsand constructedinput, but even when looking at the colors of flowering plantsand their offspringwe find that we are likely to be dealing with a theory deriving from Mendelian genetics that was constructedthrough inference and still does not explain all that is requiredof it.

Cited References
Baker, Herbert G. 1965. Plantsand Civilization. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc. IndianLanguages, Franz Boas, pp. 1-83. Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction. In Handbookof American ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
. 1948. Race, Language, and Culture. New York: MacMillan.

Brittanica. 1979. Chicago: EncyclopaediaBrittanicaInc. Encyclopaedia Hardin, Garrett.1959. Natureand Man's Fate. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Madsen, William. 1967. Religious Syncretism.In Handbook MiddleAmerican vol. 6, ed. Manning of Indians, Nash and Robert Wauchope, pp. 369-392. Austin: University of Texas Press. Olien, Michael D. 1973. Latin Americans: New York: Contemporary Peoplesand Their CulturalTraditions. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Schery, Robert W. 1972. Plants Man. 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. for