Han and the Hype of Hyperculture

Speeding lights

In a post-globalization world, when the horizon of cultural mixing is rapidly expanding and we are renegotiating our understanding of values, perceptions, and habits—Byung-chul Han sees this cultural shifting through a lens of optimism and names it Hyperculture. The definition of culture is varied and anthropologists, sociologists, or literary critics explain the term from different disciplinary perspectives.  For example, Edward Tylor (1870) defines culture as a quality possessed by all people, Matthew Arnolds (1867) refers to special intellectual or artistic products, and T.S. Eliot (1949) says it is all the characteristic activities and interests of people. Deriving from such definitions, Terry Eagleton (2016), categorizes the term, culture, as—(1) a body of artistic/intellectual work, (2) a process of spiritual and intellectual development, (3) the values, customs, beliefs, and symbolic practices by which people live, or (4) a whole way of life. If we carefully observe, all these categories are associated with either time or space, which indicates that culture is contextual, and therefore, exclusive.

Han wonders if the term, culture, means anything anymore. As an answer to that exclusivity in the era of globalized-interconnectedness, he champions for hyperculture. Hyper, as a prefix, points to go beyond, more, or network (as in Ted Nelson’s Hypertext). While cultural exchange is not a new phenomenon, the other terms that imply that—such as interculturality, multiculturality, or transculturality—all refer to land relations. The cultural differences are perceived through either assimilation or tolerance—the common tropes of nationalism and colonialism. Han rather prefers the term hyperculture as it negates the sense of belongingness that is tied to a site or soil and history. According to Han, “cultural authenticity or genuineness” is dissolving (p. 9) and a siteless culture, as opposed to the concept of having a cultural root, is rising that unlocks unlimited possibilities. He refers to hyperculture as the new culture resulting from the melding of different cultures; hyperculture is an opportunity that indicates more culture, which is inclusive in nature.

Echoing Han, some of the practitioners of Hyperculture, including artists and entrepreneurs, define the term in the following ways:

Hyper Culture, an internationally collaborative music project, that works at the “intersection of the social and spatial environment worldwide” and “creates and executes transdisciplinary culture projects.”

HyperCulture, a designer duo based in the Netherlands, are defining the term as “the natural outcome of living in a digitally connected society capable of rapid communication.”

• A digital anthropology cite called Cyborg Anthropology defines hyperculture as an “accelerated form of modernity” as a “result of the transformation of time and space in postmodern society.”

• A Dubai-based women’s clothing brand called The Hyper Culture relates the term with phrases such as “the spirit of individuality”, “across cultures and boundaries”, “diverse cultures”, “unique selves”, “the beauty of diversity”, and “authenticity”.

• A community built around sustainable garments and other objects named Hyperculture express their existence simultaneously with others, similar to Han’s concept of “side-by-side.”

• A USA-based brand, Hyper iconic, sells its clothing collection under the name of Hyper Culture to share its pop-culture values.

• A teen American blogger runs a blog named Hyperculture Blog for a pop-cultural commentary.

A patchwork made of images created by various artists
This patchwork shows how the above-mentioned artists and entrepreneurs imagine hyperculture differently

These practitioners do not necessarily find hyperculture as a new expression but as a compound of existing cultures; their emphasis on pop culture indicates its association with time. They remix and recontextualize visual languages from different cultures, eras, and forms to create value and excitement (https://www.psyop.com/directors/hyperculture/). While excitement may not be directly related to any cultural context, values certainly are. Values are determined by a culture’s standard of good and just in society. Even if we consider Homi Bhabha’s (1994) argument that culture is not a fixed set of values but a spectrum, values are still embedded in a specific socio-cultural context. Therefore, values can be transferred or transformed but cannot be created.

Han’s use of metaphor, therefore, I argue, is to make meaning by connecting the value of one thing associated with a particular socio-cultural context to another [Lakoff and Johnson, 1980]. While Han keeps emphasizing the existence of a new culture in the contemporary world, he also addresses the notion of cultural heterogeneity as a coexistence of natives with foreigners. This makes me question the identity of hyperculture. Is it new, or, is is more? Stephen Bertman, in his 1998 book “Hyperculture: The Human Cost of Speed,” mentioned that hyperculture results from a high-speed living, which enforces a now-oriented mentality by obscuring any sense of history and memory. I read Han’s metaphor of a tourist in a Hawaiian shirt in this light—this tourist is a person who is not necessarily eager to experience a foreign culture, rather they have no sense of existing cultural roots to identify another culture as a foreign one. It seems Han’s concept of hyperculture is just an extension of pop culture (which resonates with the practitioner’s definitions as well) that casualizes culture. Without having a past or future, hyperculture is in a pendulous state. If anything, it is failing the possibility of heterogeneity.

[Han, 2022; Tylor, 1870; Arnolds, 1867; Eliot, 1949; Eagleton, 2016; Bhabha, 1994; Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Bertman,1998]