The Research On Cultural Hybridity In The Context Of Globalized Communication

Since the1980s with the development of digital information technology, humanity has moved into a new era of global village. The acceleration of economic globalization has promoted the cultural interaction and fusion among different nations and regions. Capital flows and technology penetration create the opportunity for all kinds of cultural forms to circulate, which can be seen from both the impact of strong culture upon weak culture and the subculture’s challenges towards mainstream culture. When the circulation of various cultures happened in the same real space, a new type of hybrid cultural form would become prominent. In this case, the old dependency paradigm and cultural imperialism will gradually lose its final vitality.This research studies the paradigm shift of international communication since the middle of20th century. It mainly discusses the cultural relationship problem of relevant culture research over the past several decades, especially the attitude of developing countries towards national culture and local culture and the opinion of developed countries on NWICO. They were the most controversial topic before the prevalence of globalization. The debates between cultural imperialism and anti-cultural imperialism have brought cultural dualism to the front. Then with the development of ICT, globalization has become a new research paradigm, while its conceptual system is too complex and ambiguous to be an effective theory. Starting from the cultural issues in globalization era, this research analyzes the cultural fusion and collision from the perspective of hybridity. In fact, with the decline of cultural imperialism and the rise of post-colonialism, cultural hybridity has become a new theoretical orientation for globalization discussion in humanities and social sciences field.The third chapter analyzes the concept development of hybridity from its etymology to the significance of endogenous, and how it entered into everyday life and cultural field. Observation from this point is helpful for understanding the connotation and the key proposition of cultural hybridity. It further validates the assertion of Homi Bhabha and Garcia Canclini who viewed hybridity as a third space, which means hybridity could provide the development space of the third culture.In the fourth chapter, based on the research of multinational cultural products, this study has clarified the lures and threats of hybridity concept. Moreover, it questioned the "progressive of hybridity" notion proposed by post-colonialism scholars. This study suggests that hybridity couldn’t construct a ideal third space. In reality, the seemingly hybrid cultural products have been influenced by neo-liberalism and inherent political and economic hegemony have not been weakened. Therefore, all kinds of research on hybridity should notice the existence of "dominate hybridity","resistance to hybridity" and "negotiated hybridity". After all, different actors can make use of ubiquitous culture to communicate their own ideology and value in order to consolidate and subvert the existing power relationship. The fifth chapter summarizes the limits of current cultural hybridity theory, indicating that scholars should view hybridity as a type of communication practice. This perspective can get rid of the simplistic revolutionary and subversive discourse and put hybrid phenomenon into specific political and economic life. Thus we can understand the intercultural products in the real context. In the end of the study, Raymond Williams’ cultural structure classification is applied to analyze cultural hybridity in the context of China.