Showing posts with label Hybridity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hybridity. Show all posts

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

HYBRID URBAN FAITH

In Context

The concept of hybridity refers to the increasingly significant emergence of ‘dialogical identities’ in urban Britain. The 2001 National Census pointed to a growing community of people of dual heritage. In Birmingham 30,000 people defined themselves as dual heritage [3%] and across England and Wales 677,000 people defined themselves in this manner [1.2%]. It is important to set this trend alongside the persistence of raciological debate, the increasing electoral success of the far right British National Party in the early years of the 21st century, critiques of multiculturalism, debates about belonging and the nature of Britishness.

Social hybridity represents a critique of essentialist raciology and fixed patterns of identity. Thus urban youth identities can draw hip-hop music together with Anglicised-Jamaican patois that is infused with Bengali/Punjabi/Urdu vocabulary and ‘New York’ street fashion to give rise to a new hybrid/dialogical identity. Urban popular culture provides a clear illustration of cultural and technological hybridity. Fusion is not new within urban music (see for example Jazz fusion or funk in the 1970s and 1980s). However the fusion of different cultural forms which bring different expressions of diasporan British life into dialogue is more recent. Two examples of such musical hybridity are the Asian Dub Foundation who draw together rap, bhangra, classical Indian music, dub and ragga and the solo artist Nitin Sawhney traditional Indian music, flamenco, Latin rhythms, drum ‘n bass, tabla and techno. Such hybrid urban music exemplifies the challenge which hybridity represents to compartmentalisation.

In Theory

The concept of social hybridity has stimulated increasing debate within social theory and cultural studies. The term is not without problems. It invites parallels to be drawn with its use in botany where different species of plant are fused to create a new hybrid or with the pseudo-scientific raciological taxonomies of the nineteenth century. It suggests that the only future for plural Britain is one in which normative difference leads to fusion and not an evolving dialogue of equals. In spite of this the concept has challenged fixed and binary understandings of identity. The term has been closely associated with Bhabha who speaks of a ‘third space’ within plural societies. This dialogical space critiques notions of cultural isolation or ‘purity’ through its articulation of an in-between location which is characterised by fluidity, uncertainty, dialogue, instability and difference. A hybrid society is one, according to Hall, which is characterised by intimacy and not isolation, fusion and not so called purity. Gilroy observes, ‘From the viewpoint of ethnic absolutism this would be a litany of impurity.’ Baker suggests that the experience and language of hybridity signal an inexorable move away from the binary definitions of modernity towards an increasingly fluid and intermingled urban society. The hybrid third space within urban Britain which is forged in the gaps between fixed communities can be seen as a locus for submerged narratives to emerge. As Baker points out, ‘Within our postmodern culture we now have stories, theories, cultures and urban spaces that are fusions of gender, sexuality and different degrees of mobility as well as race, culture and ethnic identity.’ In his challenge to raciology Gilroy asserts the ethical force of hybridity, suggesting that the ‘…theorisation of creolisation and hybridity…’ can provide the template for liberative identities in the twenty-first century which move beyond essentialism and raciology.



In Theology

Whilst proactive reflection on hybridity has only emerged in recent years within urban theology the related question of syncretism has long been a source of debate as Schreiter notes in relation to the dialogue between indigenous cultures and missionary based Christian preaching on a global scale. During the last decade two British urban theologians have focused reflection the contemporary experience of hybridity in post-colonial Britain. Beckford has sought to forge a dialogue between the black-led church and Rastafarianism, arguing that the concept of ‘dread’ within Rastafari can be placed in a dialogue with understandings of Jesus as liberator to fashion an emancipatory hybrid Christology. Unlike Beckford who has sought to use hybridity and cultural interchange to forge a specifically black Christology, Baker has begun to reflect on the character of hybridity itself as a new and potentially liberative theme within urban life and faith. He speaks of the emergence of a ‘third space’ theology which arises from the dialogical space in contemporary society which is created as a result of the subversion of fixed binary understandings of identity. Hybridity becomes a creative theological category which Baker argues emphasises the creative potential of ‘burred encounter’, inclusive hospitality, dialogue, catholicity, holistic understandings of creation and an ‘...open-ended and fluid Christology.’


Some Key Texts

Chris Baker, The Hybrid Church in the City: Third Space Thinking. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007)

Robert Beckford, Dread and Pentecostal: A Political Theology for the Black Church in Britain.
(London: S.P.C.K, 2000)

Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture. (London: Routledge, 1994).

Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. (London: Verso, 1993

Paul Gilroy Against Race. (Cambridge Massachusetts, The Belknapp Press, Harvard University, 2000)

Paul Gilroy, After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? Abingdon: Routledge, 2004

Stuart Hall, ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’ in Jana Evans Braziel and Anita Mannur. ed. Theorising
Diaspora. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003)

Robert Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies. (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1985)

Leonie Sandercock, Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities (London: Continuum Press, 2003)

Thursday, 28 May 2009

Seeds of a New Hermeneutical Principle: Liberative Difference

The day before yesterday I bumped into our postman. He looked really gloomy. 'I'm really sorry' he said 'But the BNP have got the royal mail to deliver their election leaflets. It makes me feel dirty....as if some of the people I deliver letters to just don't matter...'


Our postman was right...The splintering of marginalised urban communities, the demonising of ’the stranger’, the scapegoating of the British-Muslim community since 9/11 and the political abandonment of progressive multiculturalism sustain a model of citizenship that is premised on this ethic of oppressive difference.

We get divided into camps....religious as well as cultural....and when we are divided the only people that win are the BNP. But life's not like that is it? Those of us who live in big cities know just how everyday diversity is. We live in what's been called the 3rd space...different identities fusing, changing, re-creating something new in the city.

How can people of faith [often just as guilty of camp mentaility and race based thinking as anyone else] move beyond thinking it's OK in 2009 for a group of white dancers to come to a church social 'blacked up'? [It didn't happen in case you'er wondering but only because the Minister said 'No way.'] We need to move beyond saying 'Isn't diversity wonderful, just like a beuatiful rainbow.' Diffference isn't always wonderful...Let's be honest there are ways of thinking and acting that we say are OK but we recoil from because they are oppressive. So let's get real. Maybe what I want to call 'liberative difference' can help us out and help to put the BNP in their place....What do I mean?

Just this....As we engage in the life of the city and the life of our faith communities

Does the person we engage with accept or resist the dynamism of plural urban life? Do they see their own take on life as something that is open to change/challenge? Do they accept that people with other ideas/cultural stories are partners in struggle [or are they seen as competitors?] Do they see difference as a sign of life or a portent of doom? Are they ready to share with others in a coalition for social justice?

I really do believe that as I read my own scriptures and see the way in which Jesus depicts difference as gift that it can become a motor for real progressive change in the city. Not change that's a mask for conversion, but change that respects those with whom we share the city as partners, or even sisters and brothers....That's what I see in Jesus and that's why it makes my blood boil when the BNP parade around as if they were Christians....Let's be clear you cannot be a racist and a Christian....No ifs, no buts...That's why I get angry when my own Methodist Church is too slow and too hesitant to be up front with every single Methodist in Britain: 'Voting for the BNP is not compatible with being a member of the Methodist church...Choose one or the other but if you choose the BNP then you will no longer ne a part of the Methodist church.' Let's stop mucking around!

Liberative difference is built upon the divine bias to the stranger and the excluded

Liberative difference is a hermeneutics of the excluded and the demonised.

Liberative difference expresses the fluid, intra-contextual character of urban society.

Liberative difference enables a new conversation about ‘place’ as significant and multiple.

Liberative difference moves urban faith and politics beyond all forms of raciology

Liberative difference resources shared liberative praxis.

Liberative difference dubs prevailing antagonism towards difference, which becomes the driving force behind inclusive, networked liberative praxis.

Liberative difference enables a new critical multiculturalism to emerge which recognises the importance of the development of a progressive critical white identity.

Liberative difference unmasks and resists theological camp mentality.


I want to be able to look my postman in the eye and say, 'I said No to the BNP. So can you.' Don't we all want the same?

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

DOING BLURRED URBAN THEOLOGY

METROPOLITAN THEOLOGY

1. Arises from engagement with multipolar metropolitan life.
2. Is committed to action/research [action/reflection]
3. Views difference as a defining text for theological reflection
4. Is translocal, holding the global and the local experiences of city life in dialogue
5. Reflects the fluidity of metropolitan life
6. Is inter-cultural and inter/intra-faith and explores the transformative capacity of a ‘cultural politics of difference’.
7. Takes place in the ‘Third Space’ between fixed positions/perspectives and identities
8. Is committed to those on the underside/outside of metropolitan life
9. Is postmodern and post-Christendom
10. Engages with the existential questioning of ‘post-religious’ metropolitan generations
11. Adopts a non-confessional ‘nitty-gritty’ hermeneutical stance.
12. Dubs metropolitan realities on the basis of a core commitment to an ethic of liberative difference
13. Is inherently and necessarily interdisciplinary
14. Acknowledges but moves beyond the reductionism and camp mentality of contemporary urban theologies