Hybridity as a source of risks in the XXI century

Ivanov Andrei Alexandrovich ORCID: 0000-0003-4097-9447 Doctor of History Associate Professor; Department of Humanities; Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation 196084, Russia, Moscow, Leningradsky ave., 51 ivanovaa85@list.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

At the present stage of society's development, in the context of the active introduction of advanced achievements of science and technology into various spheres of life, often referred to as the new industrial and technological revolution, the issues of assessing the risks of intensifying progress are becoming noticeably relevant. In particular, the belief in the promise of many discoveries in the field of advanced technologies (artificial intelligence, communications, energy storage methods, etc.) often results in significant losses for investors, since these innovations do not meet the expected demand from consumers. At the same time, startups related to the development and implementation of information technologies traditionally occupy leading positions in the world in terms of the share of ruin, which somewhat undermines the positions of techno-optimists and makes many doubt the idea of the transition of industrial civilization to an information type of organization of society.

In this regard, attention is drawn to the fact that a significant part of modern innovations, both technological and institutional, are obtained through hybridization, that is, the synthesis of previously achieved scientific results among themselves in search of new ways to optimize production, educational, political and other processes. That is, progress in a sense is only an illusion of development based on innovations, whereas such developments, if they can be called innovations, then they belong only to their complementary type. Symbols of such products in the modern world are, for example, a smartphone, which is a combination of a previously created personal computer, digital camera, music player, router, etc., or a hybrid power plant combining an internal combustion engine with an electric motor. In addition, hybrid computing systems, multifunctional monoblock devices, hybrid welding methods, hybrid turning and milling machines, etc. have been created and are currently being used.

Research methodology

The study of the phenomenon of hybridity, which covers a wide variety of spheres of human activity, is possible only from the standpoint of consistency and interdisciplinarity, since up to now the results of this process have been observed separately by specialists from different sciences. It makes sense to conduct a comprehensive analysis of hybrids in such areas as politics, economics, military affairs, labor relations, etc. using the achievements of historical institutionalism. Firstly, the use of factor analysis to determine the risks from the use of hybrids in the above-mentioned areas is carried out by assessing the potential costs generated by negative externalities. Secondly, the spread of hybridization in the modern world is studied in accordance with the principle of historicism as a result of the cumulative effect.

Exogenous hybridization

Strictly speaking, hybrid constructs began to appear long before the 21st century, but earlier their origin was more often exogenous due to cultural diffusion. Such hybrids were characterized by G. F. Hegel in the Philosophy of History, when he described the effect of continuity between different peoples. In his view, in a situation of intercultural interaction, there is a period of existence of a "dual culture" of original and borrowed elements.: "The education of the people consists in combining these two cultures, and the first period ends with the development of a real, independent force of the people, which then turns against its predecessor" ^{[1, p. 244]}. Continuing this thought, I. Droysen characterized the socio-political system in the Mediterranean and the Middle East after the conquests of Alexander the Great, called "Hellenism", as a synthesis of Greek and Oriental institutions ^[2]. In his opinion, neither the Seleucid empire nor Ptolemaic Egypt can be considered Hellenic in the full sense, that is, they completely absorbed the external cultural influence – on their soil there was a hybridization of the principles of military organization, art, philosophy, etc. Such arguments, among other things, formed the basis for O. Spengler's statement that the conditions of intercultural transfer are characterized not so much by the transplantation of old institutions into a new environment, as by their reinterpretation by recipients ^{[3, p. 58]}. In addition, reasoning in this vein led the American anthropologist M. Herskovitz to the idea that this is how many religious teachings have acquired their current form. In a 1937 article "African gods and Catholic Saints in the Negro beliefs of the New World" ^[4], the author consistently defended the thesis that the inhabitants of Haiti, Cuba and Brazil identified themselves as Catholics, but this did not prevent them from being adherents of idolatrous cults at the same time. Similarly, in Japan, there was a fusion of Buddhism and Shintoism, in India – Buddhism and Hinduism, and in Russia, people who consider themselves Orthodox can easily appeal to various astrological concepts.

Despite the fact that mutual enrichment of crops can occur due to hybridization ^[5], the main risk of relying on this method of development seems to be that, as in biology, hybrids obtained in this way can be either very effective or completely unviable.

For example, one of the most popular alcoholic beverages in the world is tequila, which is just a cultural hybrid. It is made from the agave plant, the fermented juice of which was consumed by the Indians of the New World long before they met the Europeans. The colonizers from the Old World, for their part, processed this product using an alembic, which significantly increased the strength of the drink. In other words, tequila, which brings huge revenues to Mexico, is the result of combining European technology with elements of Native American folk culture. Nevertheless, this combination did not always have positive results – for example, in the 16th century the Dutch imported mechanical watches from Europe to Japan. The difficulty was that the Japanese system of measuring time differed from that adopted in the West (if in Europe the day was divided into 24 hours of the same duration, then in Japan the duration of daytime and night hours differed depending on the time of year). Attempts to adapt watches to this system led to the fact that it became too difficult to determine the time using them and there was no widespread demand for the product. Thus, combining the technological achievements of the West with the culture of the East in this case ended in failure.

It should be borne in mind that the process of exogenous hybridization affects social groups to varying degrees, therefore it can increase internal differentiation and fractionalization, generating additional communication barriers and transaction costs. Actually, Plato already has the idea that combining the achievements of communities of different levels of development can harm a more efficiently organized society. This point of view was supported by H. Arendt, who used the concept of "colonial boomerang" to describe how, when countries with an asymmetric level of socio-economic development interact, convergence can take the path of likening the institutional environment of more developed countries to less developed ones, and not vice versa ^{[6, p. 54]}. Following this logic, in the context of globalization, the disadvantages of peripheral states can become widespread in the countries of the "core" of the world system: human rights violations, violent entrepreneurship, corruption, tax evasion, political absenteeism, etc. The Argentine researcher N. G. Canclini came to similar conclusions based on the analysis of interethnic contacts in the border areas of the USA, Mexico and Latin America. He explains the reasons for the emergence of cultural hybrids in modern conditions by the development of means of communication, political populism and the emergence of an increasing number of interstate associations ^[7], and one of the possible consequences may be the death of local cultures characterized by a low level of inclusivity and "plasticity".

Endogenous hybridization

Interpreting hybridization as one of the responses to cultural imperialism in the neocolonial world, N. G. Canclini sees in it not so much purposeful as reactive activity, however, one can hardly fully agree with him in this. Back in the 20th century, actors at various levels demonstrated a fully conscious desire to use hybridization as a tool to increase the effectiveness of various social practices. An example is the so-called hybrid institutional agreements, which in modern science are understood as intermediate-type institutional formations, often of a suboptimal nature, but designed with the involvement of organizational, normative and ideological elements of previously established institutions in society. Such hybridization, as a rule, allowed not only to make adjustments to the mechanism of functioning of the institutional matrix, but also to give the reforms a traditionalist look in order to overcome the effect of blocking innovation by both conservative elites and passive masses.

For example, the experience of modernization in South Korea forces us to pay attention to the role of "chaebols" (Samsung, Hyundai, Daewoo, etc.) – financial and industrial groups controlled by large clans, that is, they represented a union of family and business institutions supported by the state. Although running a family business in the West often encounters the problem of informal relationships at work, which makes it difficult to impose sanctions on subordinate relatives, in Asia, as it turned out, such a symbiosis provided de-bureaucratization and better communication. In Japan, there were also similar associations called zaibatsu. There were also hybrids in the USSR, such as, say, prison–type research institutes and design bureaus ("sharashki") operating in the 1930s and 1950s. Scientists arrested for various categories of crimes worked in such institutions, and the motive for making scientific discoveries and creating new technical devices in this case was not only personal gain (exemption from criminal prosecution, receiving government awards), but also fear of increased repression.

In the 21st century, this experience has not been lost.

For example, in modern military theory, the concept of "hybrid warfare" has become established, which is usually understood as an integrated operation using traditional military, reconnaissance, sabotage, and non-military (economic, diplomatic, psychological, cybernetic, etc.) means ^{[8, p. 64-65]}. Hybrid wars, from the point of view of their initiators, by creating a whole range of diverse threats to the enemy, make it possible to minimize the use of instruments of military violence, leading not only to human, but also infrastructural and reputational losses. In other words, the multifaceted nature of the conflict makes it possible to combine the efforts of many institutions not directly related to the armed forces as part of a comprehensive strategy to achieve victory. From a theoretical point of view, hybrid wars are resource-saving, but their complex structure is far from always able to guarantee the rapid achievement of planned results. Firstly, hybridity, in this case, means that success in one area (for example, military-strategic) depends on performance in other areas (propaganda, diplomatic, sanctions, etc.). Secondly, the inability to unambiguously determine the effectiveness of institutions involved in a conflict with a specific opponent before the start of the confrontation leads to a consistent changing the tools used, taking into account the changing operational environment. Such step-by-step recombination can take a long time, depleting the resources allocated for the operation.

In turn, political scientists actively use the term "hybrid political regimes" to characterize management methods that combine democratic and autocratic features. For example, if there are attributes of democracy – a constitutional and legal act, a system of elections at different levels, a multiparty system, etc. – their functioning is only formal ^{[9, p. 34]}. In other words, the tolerance of the existence of legal opposition on the part of the authorities (uncharacteristic for classical autocracy) does not negate the presence of artificial restrictions on its participation in key government decisions. The emergence of such hybrids in the sphere of political relations is often explained by the peculiarities of the liminal periods of state development, when there is no demand for democratization in society if its advocates in government bodies are unable to meet the fundamental needs of citizens. However, the widespread use of hybrid regimes in the modern world can also be seen as the purposeful activity of ruling elites seeking to maintain power while maintaining the appearance of democratic change. From this perspective, these regimes appear to be extremely unstable, since the narrowness of the tools and methods of political struggle limits the possibilities of a non-violent government response to possible acts of civil disobedience. This feature, in turn, creates risks of escalation of social conflicts.

Finally, it is impossible not to note the emergence of a hybrid format of work, that is, the integration of full-time and remote work. This scheme allows enterprises not only to customize the work schedule of employees, taking into account their characteristics, but also to involve highly qualified personnel from remote regions or countries who for some reason are not ready to change their permanent place of residence. In addition, this format of work not only gives employees the opportunity to perform production functions in the most comfortable conditions for them, but also reduces the company's costs for renting premises. Nevertheless, this hybrid design is not without drawbacks, since due to the minimization of personal communication between team members, the level of mutual trust decreases - contacts become exclusively formal, therefore mutual perception is limited by the nature of the performance of official duties and formally held positions. Meanwhile, another E. Ostrom drew attention to the importance of informal contacts, increasing the cohesion and contractual capacity of subjects of social interaction to create an effective management system for the allocation of resources ^[10].

Hybridization and technological modernization

Returning to the problem of technological development in the 21st century, it is impossible not to mention the point of view that the trend towards hybridization reflects not an acceleration, but, on the contrary, a slowdown in the pace of human development since the beginning of the third millennium. To prove this thesis, the American physicist J. In 2005, Hubner calculated the number of technological innovations in world history, from the middle of the 15th century to the present, per billion inhabitants of the planet. It turned out that, despite the growth of the world's population over the past centuries, the number of scientific discoveries per capita began to decline since 1905, and if this trend continues, by about 2030, this indicator will be below the level of the Middle Ages ^[11]. J. Huebner explained this by the emergence of an increasing number of economic and legal restrictions, of a moral and ethical nature, hindering full-fledged innovation activity, against the background of the complication of the social structure.

That is, the problem lies not only in the fact that society, in order to maintain internal stability, creates a set of blocks for innovative development through a system of social institutions, but also in the fact that demand orientation may slow down scientific and technological progress rather than activate it. The capitalist system focuses innovators on creating competitive products as quickly as possible, which is not always consistent with the specifics of scientific research. As L. DeMos wrote about this, "the order in which discoveries and inventions are made is not determined by the "needs of society" – otherwise the toilet tank would have been invented earlier than scientific astronomy" ^{[12, p. 141]}. As a result, scientific and technical specialists operating within hierarchical structures are often limited not only in the amount of allowable research funds, but also in the time to present the final product, which forces them to turn to the hybridization method.

This approach probably began to gain popularity, among other things, due to the so-called "Japanese economic miracle", when in the 1960s and 1970s the country demonstrated extremely high rates of development. According to Japanese experts, one of the important factors of this "breakthrough" was the reliance of industry on a combination of technologies, for example, in the production of steel, watches or video recorders. The "inventive combination of fundamentally different elements" was even called a reflection of the national style of technical creativity, and the reliance on hybridization was "the quintessence ... of the technical power of the country" ^{[13, p. 38, 39]}. The Japanese experience of the 1970s in creating hybrids like digital-to-analog watches or a combination of a camera and a radio receiver is now being used by manufacturers in other countries. In the 21st century, on well-known electronic trading platforms, you can find hybrids of a cell phone and a writing pen, a wristwatch with a lighter, a waist belt with a drink stand, etc., and in Russia, special "payment rings" connected to users' personal bank accounts are offered as a means of contactless payment.

Nevertheless, the success of this scenario should not be overestimated, since in the long term it turned into a so-called "lost decade" for Japan (later the terms "lost twenties" and even "lost thirties" began to be used), when the innovative potential, and after it the country's economic efficiency indicators, began in 1991. go down. For example, hierarchically structured zaibatsu turned out to be unprepared to develop their own software as an independent product, rather than an addition to an existing product. The software products created in their structure were sold and used mainly within conglomerates, which led to the loss of benefits from their global distribution. Relying on the experience of developing hybrid technologies, of course, allows Japan to remain one of the leaders in the fields of biomedicine, composite materials, robotics, etc., where a synthesis of various knowledge and technologies is required. However, the desire for automation and digitalization in these conditions is equivalent to dependence on external sources of innovation for the country, which was indirectly recognized by the government of F. Kishida in the "Strategy for the Transition to a "new form of Capitalism" in 2022 ^[14].

Conclusion

Summarizing, we can conclude that hybridization, although it is a widespread method of creating technological products and social institutions in the modern world, carries the risks of losing cultural identity, technological sovereignty and economic efficiency. The key to the full-fledged development of modern society can only be "breakthrough" innovations, the methodology of which should be based on the principles of science, rather than extracting short-term benefits. Although in the past hybridization made it possible to achieve economic progress for countries undergoing inorganic modernization, using this mechanism to enter the path of sustainable development seems counterproductive. At the moment, the methodology of designing cultural hybrids with predefined characteristics is still under development, which creates risks of the formation of inefficient constructs. At the same time, hybridization in the field of politics, despite significant interest in this topic in modern conditions, can also lead to the emergence of institutions that are at least suboptimal in structure or even potentially dangerous in terms of stabilizing social relations. In other words, hybridity in the 21st century is a potential source of many diverse risks, and not at all a way out of crises.