LL306 Hybridity Ambivalence and Mimicry

LL306 Theories and Theorists
Three major terms adapted into colonial discourse theory by

Homi Bhabha:
• Ambivalence
• Hybridity
• Mimicry
• In these lectures we examine these terms and you will be
expected to apply them to the following: stories, poems
and articles in “Dreadlocks Interrupted”:
• Des-pora (Seona Smiles)
• The Case of the “White Lady with the Towel”… (Regis
Stella)
• Afakasi Checklist (Selina T Marsh)
• Street Poets Black-2005 Remix (Rev. Mua Strickson-Pua)
• Seawall (Subramani),
and to the works of your choice in To a Young Artist in
Contemplation.
HOMI BHABHA
Ambivalence
• A term first developed to describe a continual fluctuation between wanting
one thing and wanting its opposite. It refers to attraction toward and
repulsion from an object, person or action.
• Adapted into and repucolonial discourse theory it describes the complex
mix of attraction lsion that characterises the relationship between coloniser
and colonised.
• The relationship is ambivalent because the colonised subject is never
simply or completely opposed to the coloniser.
• Rather than assuming that some colonised subjects are complicit and some
are resistant, ambivalence suggests that complicity and resistance exist
within a fluctuating relation within the colonial subject.
• In Bhabha’s theory, ambivalence disrupts the clear cut authority of colonial
domination because it disturbs the simple relationship between coloniser
and colonised.
• What instances of ambivalence do you find in the works outlined from
Dreadlocks Interrupted?
• Why are they examples of ambivalence?
• How is ambivalence treated by the writers?
• Are there any resolutions to the ambivalence?
Hybridity
In horticulture it refers to cross-breeding of two species
through grafting or cross-polination to produce a third,
hybrid species
Linguistic examples include pidgin and creole languages.
In the colonial context there is a mix of cultures which for
Bhabha makes him sceptical of the claim to cultural
purity but not of cultural difference.
He sees hybridity as empowering not as weakening.
Hybridity was sometimes seen as the basis of the way
forward for postcolonial societies caught up in the
conflicts of life in a multicultural societies.
What sort of difficulties can you see for such a proposal?
What are some current examples from events around you
that exemplifies hybridity, or is based on its rationale?
LL306 Theories and Theorists: Hybridity
Mimicry
Again, describes the ambivalent relationship between the coloniser and
the colonised.
When colonial discourse encourages the colonised subject to mimic the
coloniser by adopting the coloniser’s cultural habits, assumptions,
institutions and values, the result is never a simple reproduction of
those traits (139).
Rather the result is a blurred copy of the coloniser that can be quite
threatening. This is because mimicry is never very far from mockery,
since it appears to parody what it mimics (139).
Mimicry has often been a overt goal of imperial policy . The irony was that
it produced a hybridised class of people - Indian in blood and
English a taste (139-140).
You can get a similar examples in the transformations in Sailosi Atiu in
Epeli Hau’ofa’s short story “The Second Coming:
For Bhabha, mimicry is the process by which the colonised subject is
reproduced as ‘almost the same, but not quite’ (140). This is
disrupting to the monolithic colonial discourse (140).
The threat inherent in mimicry, then, comes not from an overt resistance
but from the way in which it continually suggests an identity not
quite like the coloniser (141).
Bhabha sees mimicry and hybridity as forms of

opposition (p.9).
For Bhabha it results in an excess – it is this
difference which has agency.
According to Bhabha: ‘colonial mimicry is the desire
for a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject
of a difference that is almost the same, but not
quite.
Which is to say, that the discourse of mimicry is
constructed around an ambivalence; in order to
be effective, mimicry must continually produce
its slippage, its excess, its difference’ (1994: 86).

LL306 Theories and
Theorists: Hybridity.
Ambivalence, Mimicry
• The English themselves are mimic men and women who imitate a certain
idea of ‘Englishness’; it is not as if English identity and tradition are solid
themselves.
• Beyond those ethnocentric limits are a range of other dissonant histories

and voices.
• According to Spivak: ‘the construction of an English cultural identity was

inseparable from othering the native as its object’ (Parry p.38).
• Ralph’s mimicry of the coloniser’s culture draws attention to his difference.
• This is because one never arrives at the desired location or transformation

because of one’s excess.
• Bhabha proposes that even while one is making a duplication, that

duplication will be more than the double which suggests its limits.
• Authority is questioned through its lack of a fixed centre, solidity and
authenticity.
• These are questions that you need to examine in some
detail when we study Salman Rushdie’s Midnights
Children
ARGUMENTS
Subaltern Studies group
The Subaltern Studies group formed by Ranajit Guha is a group of historians who
aimed to promote a systematic discussion of subaltern themes in South
Asian studies.
The ‘subaltern’ in this case referred to subordination in South Asian society in
terms of class, caste, age, gender.
They believed that accounts of Indian history and nationalism were dominated by
the colonialist and nationalist elite which were a product of British
colonialism (Ashcroft 217).
Hence, their purpose was to address the politics of the people and reinsert their
stories into history.
They have particular interest in the discourses and rhetoric of emerging social
and political movements, uprisings and demonstrations (peasant
insurgency).
If they watched Temple of Doom they’d be interested in the narrative of the silent
masses, they wouldn’t be concerned with Indiana!
• Salman Rushdie’s Midnights Children moves beyond the
usual narrative devices, towards providing the “voice” to
a range of characters, some of whom are arguably
subaltern, particularly Padma, Saleem Sinai’s confidant.
Spivak’s controversial essay

Three arguments:
1. essentialism
The idea of the subaltern became an issue in postcolonial
theory when Spivak critiqued the assumptions of the
Subaltern Studies group in her essay ‘Can the subaltern
speak?’ (essay in your Reader). This essay became a
founding text of postcolonialism.
The assumptions, she argued were based on essentialism –
the subaltern were defined by their difference to the
ruling elite (A 218).
Spivak drew attention to the fact that their essential
subjectivity was constrained by the discourses within
which they were constructed as subaltern. Meaning that
the subaltern’s voice is not isolated from the discourses
and institutional practices that give it its voice (A 79).

LL306 Hybridity Ambivalence and Mimicry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LL306 Hybridity Ambivalence and Mimicry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LL306 Hybridity Ambivalence and Mimicry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LL306 Theories and Theorists

Three major terms adapted into colonial discourse theory by

Bhabha sees mimicry and hybridity as forms of

• Beyond those ethnocentric limits are a range of other dissonant histories

• According to Spivak: ‘the construction of an English cultural identity was

• Ralph’s mimicry of the coloniser’s culture draws attention to his difference.

• This is because one never arrives at the desired location or transformation

• Bhabha proposes that even while one is making a duplication, that

Spivak’s controversial essay

You might also like