A lot has been made these days of things which can serve a ‘combination’ of functions at the same time. The classic example being a “hybrid” automobile that can ‘run’ on both/either gasoline and/or battery. This provides a certain advantage of more flexibility than cars which are either: all-electric or all-Petro fuel. While this may be advantageous for machines, organizations and other, inanimate mechanical devices, I do not think it carries the same benefits when we apply “hybridization” to living things like Human Beings.
As an Organizational Behaviorist, I have witnessed some institution structural changes which might be classified as “Hybrid” and those certainly can affect its Human inhabitants. I am specifically thinking of how traditional Non-Profit Organizations (“good deed” oriented) have had to become more financially conscious (like For-Profit Institutions) in order to ‘survive’ the increased revenue/cost pressure that have become incumbent upon them during the last generation. Likewise, For-Profit Companies have had to become “hybridized” to become more philanthropic/charitable in order to project an image of being a “Good Corporate Citizen” which, has proven to positively affect its “Bottom Line.”
We can see this same type of Hybrid ‘trend’ happening in Government with the DOGE emphasis in Washington, DC (and surely to follow in State Capitals throughout America). The efforts underway are more “business-like” than anything seen before and not resembling the previously political methods of evaluation. The attempt is to run The U.S. Government like a “profit” venture is an Organizational “hybridization” for sure. My suspicion is that we will see some crossover to the Business world as well. Maybe even an even a little more “political” than previously, perhaps approaching the ‘level’ of Non-Profit Institutions?
I can clearly remember when the idea of “androgyny” was something to strive towards. You know, adding another ‘dimension’ to “brutish” masculinity by becoming more “sensitive” to surroundings and more “expressive” of emotions. For the ladies, adding elements of “strength” and “assertiveness” to go along with the “delicacy” which women were so-well-known for before “liberation.” While I am enthusiastically supportive for adding ‘positive’ attributes to all people, do we not lose ‘something’ when those people become “neither fish nor fowl?” One should aspire to be a “strong, confident” Woman without losing ANY Femininity, or an “expressive, sensitive” Man without losing ANY Masculinity. Much harder to accomplish, for sure!
The most difficult part by far is knowing what to incorporate into one’s being and what to leave as God/Nature intended. For example, I think it is great to learn from other “cultures” and grow/develop oneself without LOSING one’s “uniqueness.” (Remember the “white woman” who chose to identify as “black?”) When I travelled to Japan, I learned to appreciate sushi. That does not make me Japanese, however, just an American who likes the cuisine of raw fish with rice. I can say the exact same thing about a dozen other cultural experiences: be open to new/different things; evaluate those things; incorporate the ones that you like/approve of; continually grow and develop without altering your “essence.” Always work on being the best Human you can without ‘discounting’ your own gender, race, age, ethnicity, citizenship or religion in any way. That is much more difficult (but more worthwhile) than being one-dimensional.
I can recollect when cats became the most numerous pet in America supplanting the population of dogs. Their popularity was attributed in part due to the preponderance of dual-income households. This fact was necessitated by the desire to have more “self-sufficient” pets since fewer owners were home to “walk-the-dog” anymore. There seemed to be a lot of complaints about cats being too independent, aloof and unaffectionate. Many people had unrealistic expectations of each animal’s true nature. There is no “hybrid” pet that cleans up after itself AND will be your “Best Friend” no matter what? It is not an animal problem; it is a people problem.
I also remember vividly the dichotomy I personally faced in each aspect of my two careers. When I was a corporate executive at major companies, I was more “liberal/humanistic” than many of my more ‘typical’ colleagues since I was not AS concerned with “how much” money was made as “How” it was made? In a sense, I was a “Hybrid” of a hard-driving businessman and a ‘questioning’ academic. It really did not work too well as I was good enough to keep my jobs for a while but was never really “outstanding” enough to get to the ‘top’ within the context of my work environments.
Conversely, when I transitioned to the “Academy” after my mid-life career change, I once again seemed to be a Hybrid employee. I was certainly interested in the “WHY” things were, and I liked the “critical-thinking” atmosphere of all of the questioning. My pragmatic and practical approach to problem-solving was never quite in-line, however, with the hypothetical/theoretical research interests of my fellow professors, however. As a result, I did well enough to retire successfully from my job but was never one of the top members of the professoriate.
I am always amused when “show” people, (‘entertainers’ of ALL kinds), have a ‘burning’ need to “hybridize” their career from one ego-centric arena to another equally-focused, attention-getting one. A highly-successful athlete desires to become a “rock-star” with only a modicum of musical talent. Likewise, the great-singer is not satisfied filling a stadium of audience members to hear songs, but one has to play in a basketball game at NBA All-Star weekend. Baseball players and NFL quarterbacks HAVE to play at PGA Pro-Am Tournaments. Yeah, maybe to help raise money BUT maybe more to raise Ego?
An Actress wants to model, and a Model wants to act. Or even worse, a moderately attractive basketball player or golfer thinks that ‘photography’ alone qualifies them as a ‘legitimate’ swimsuit cover girl. What these people might not realize is that “excellence” in one area does not automatically translate into a different area not matter how ‘easy’ it is for them to do so? As matter of fact, the better one is a one art/sport/craft, the worse it make them look to attempt to pass off any ‘hobby’ as a “profession.” Anyone who thinks that any “part-time” venture can ‘measure-up’ to the standards set by a professional’s full-time dedication, must be really out-of-touch with what everyone else ‘sees.’ Why they cannot be satisfied with the notoriety of one highly-accomplished/extremely lucrative career seems like a total problem of Self-delusion-ness? Social Media and Reality TV are certainly not helping to ameliorate the situation either; by facilitating the development of more “Hybrid” (lowering the ‘standard’) people.
I guess that principle might even apply to the more esoteric facets of life as well. Take any Negotiations for example. If one is truly a “fiscal conservative,” any attempt to moderate those beliefs for expediency sake might actually cause more harm than good? There is no hybrid for balancing-a-budget any more than anyone can be just “a little pregnant.” That is not to say there should be no room for negotiated “compromise,” just not within oneself. Any moderating effect should come about as a result of a vigorous debate from those who are NOT fiscal conservatives. Only with sufficient passion and commitment from two, opposing/dissenting positions, is a very productive solution more likely to result rather than any watered-down, “hybrid” alternative from any ONE side or the other.
Likewise for religion; someone once said, “one has to either believe in God or be one’s own god.” It seems impossible to modify any beliefs to fit into changing circumstances. That is not to say there should be no tolerance for everyone’s different beliefs just not inconsistencies within one’s own self. It is probably better to be “all in” for one’s own spiritual journey and not try to live a “hybrid” faith. To be honest, many Catholics view the Protestant Reformation in this manner. A very-popular, well-accepted and long-lasting “hybridization” of Christianity BUT created in order to suit ‘situational’ purposes. Certainly, Protestants and Catholics share much more in common than with Non-Christians, but I am not convinced that both can be “right.”
I see similar issues with Economic Philosophies and Political Ideologies. When attempts are made to be “all things to all people,” I think we end up with a big ‘mess.’ In America, neither capitalism nor democracy (representative republic) are perfect. They do NOT get any better, however, by ‘mixing’ aspects of other, non-compatible systems any more than oil mixes well with water. The problem is that it is much more difficult to find/make changes within capitalism/democracy than it is to just ‘throw’ in an element or two of “socialism.” Those approaches would be nothing more than “Band-Aid” solutions which do not address the “root causes” and oftentimes, create bigger issues for the longer-term. It seems better to ‘fight-hard’ what one believes is “right” and vigorously oppose what one believes is “wrong” rather than ‘water-down’ for what one should ‘stand.’