초록 close

The notion of hybridity is in paradox: it has emerged as a key political strategy for postcolonial critics to crisscross power-laden social boundaries, yet, at the same time, we increasingly encounter fashionable cultural hybridists and hybrid cultures in which critical consciousness is castrated. This paper aims to disentangle the paradox. The first half of this paper consists of three arguments. First, I indict ÔungroundedÕ hybridity consciousness for its political danger and emphasize the importance of historical geographical materialism to ground it. Second, by drawing on Luk‡csÕs historical materialism, I suggest that hybridity as an individual psychology is a false consciousness. Instead, I underline the notion of ÔimputationÕ, which transforms the psychology into historical consciousness through what Luk‡cs called Ôinner transformationÕ. Third, approaching to ZùizùekÕs critique of ideology and Deleuze and GuattariÕs materialist deconstruction of subject, I further interrogate what Luk‡cs termed ÔhumanityÕ and suggest that ÔdesireÕ takes a cental position in the psycho-social production of different hybridities. The second half of this paper analyzes how heterogeneous hybridity consciousness is ÔperfomativelyÕ produced, recorded, and consummated in early Korean migrantsÕ autobiographic texts in the US. There are two foci in the textual analysis. First, I focus on how the authorsÕ hybrid writing practices reproduce and, simultaneously, resist such colonial discourses as modernity, Enlightenment and Orientalism and other binary oppositions. Second, I draw on the ways in which the historical geography of colonialism and early capitalism produces authorsÕ Ôstrategically repositionedÕ hybridity through its articulations with authorsÕ desires. I conclusively argue that if detached from the inner struggle to transform individual psychology of hybridity into geohistorically imputed consciousness, hybridity would remain as a new cultural logic of late capitalism.