Hybridity: Negotiation and Integration in the
Postcolonial Diaspora
Fiona Corcoran
Introduction
The field of postcolonial studies is a relatively new one, and its subfields and theories are being expanded upon continually where older academic disciplines have stagnated. Its creation can be traced back to Edward Said’s 1978 book Orientalism, which problematized Western representations of “the Orient,” or the culture and peoples of Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa. It addressed the pervasive inaccuracy in study and perceptions of the East and linked their development to assumed Western superiority and falsely exaggerated difference (Said, 1978). Writers such as Chinua Achebe and Frantz Fanon incorporated postcolonial themes in their creative works prior to the publication of Orientalism, but Said was the first to bring those concepts into the realm of theory.
Early in the evolution of the field, scholars often disagreed on what the term “postcolonial” signified. A semantic and temporal interpretation of the term would suggest that it narrowly refers to the time following the exit of a colonial power from a colonized territory. However, the widely accepted interpretation of “postcolonial,” as first laid out in the influential 1989 handbook The Empire Writes Back, encompasses literature and theory that deconstructs the ramifications of colonialism during and after actual imperial dominance (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1989; Gilbert & Tompkins, 1996). There has been some recent criticism that this notion privileges the uninterrupted timelines of white settler colonies such as Australia and Canada over colonies in Asia and Africa that experienced more profound historical disruption after gaining independence, but the 1989 definition has been made use of in most significant postcolonial works (Trivedi, 2015). As a result of this looser conceptualization, postcolonialism can be considered both a “textual effect” and a method of finding meaning within a text (Gilbert & Tompkins, 1996). This ambiguity also informs the projects of many postcolonial writers, who focus on the convolution of postcolonial identity in ex-colonies in contrast to the essentialism that was imposed by the colonizer.
Hybridity vs. Essentialism
Essentialism, as understood in postcolonial theory, is the idea that people have a fixed and unchangeable essence that defines their identity. Colonial dominance is dependent on an essentialist construction of colonized peoples as “Other,” a fixed stereotype in opposition to the “essence” of the West that allows for subjugation (Said, 1978; Bhabha, 1994). The stereotype is both what is already “known” about the colonized and something that must be reproduced and held constant in order to justify colonization.
Homi K. Bhabha is one of the foremost figures in postcolonial studies due to his concept of “hybridity.” The term has its origins in biology and the faux racial science of the 19th century, but it is a conscious subversion of its beginnings and an examination of the contradictions in essentialist colonial discourse. If the colonial system depends on circumscription of the identity of subject peoples, then anything that interrupts the binary of colonizer and colonized is a threat to that system (Bhabha, 1994). Building on Said’s distinction of a “median category” that emerges from encounters between the East and the West, Bhabha (1994) emphasizes the colonizer’s ambivalence towards the colonized (p. 73). A colonial power attempts to reform and ensure the complacency of the colonial subject through conditional access to the culture and education of the colonizer. In order for the mimicry of colonial manner to be effective in maintaining the colonial Other as a subject of difference, it must be an imperfect imitation. The colonizer inadvertently creates a hybrid of their own identity and that of the Other, thereby disrupting the essentialist binary (Bhabha, 1994).
The hybrid exists in a liminal “in-between” that Bhabha styles “third space” (1996, p. 54). The existence of the third space challenges the belief that culture is ever truly homogenous and allows for the appropriation and translation of cultural symbols to create new meaning (Rutherford, 1990; Bhabha, 1994; Papastergiadis, 1997). Hybrid identity within the third space acts as a “lubricant” in the concomitance of cultures (Pastergiadis, 1997, p. 261). In the realm of literary criticism, hybridity warns against simplistic interpretation of postcolonial works that are mimetic of the social and historical themes of a colonial power. Although a text may take its cues from the English literary tradition, Bhabha would consider its postcolonial origin as an inherent and radical departure from the “English surface” of the work (as cited in Ashcroft et al., 1989, p. 34).
Before hybridity was first introduced to the postcolonial corpus, theorists had developed other methods of challenging essentialism. Although not necessarily in conflict with the idea of hybridity, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s concept of “strategic essentialism” repurposed essentialism as a political tactic of representation (Spivak, 1990; Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 2007). While acknowledging that colonialist application of essentialism is negative, Spivak maintained that essentialist ideas are useful with regards to postcolonial peoples rebuilding the sense of value and identity that was lost during the imperial period (Ashcroft et al., 2007). It can function as a temporary outward-facing erasure of internal group difference in order to achieve specific goals (Spivak, 1990). Spivak later abandoned the concept due to its widespread misuse as an argument for essentialism itself (Danius, Jonsson & Spivak, 1993). Despite this, strategic essentialism remains an interesting analytic contrast to hybridity.
Hybridity in the Diaspora
The natural locus for postcolonial studies would seem to be former colonies, or at least the writing that their authors produce. As an increasingly globalized era leads to the privileging of transitions in space over transitions in time, though, theories that expand beyond an assumed ex-colonial location have become central to postcolonial discourse (Ponzanesi, 2004). Diaspora is one such notion. Unlike diaspora in the traditional sense, which is a territorial scattering of identity that only exists in reference to a lost homeland, the diasporic experience as postcolonial theorists would define it is an acknowledgement of the necessity of hybridity (Hall, 1994). Further, it is an understanding of identity as existing through, not in spite of, diversity and difference. Narratives of migration and immigration are brought to the forefront, but with more of an emphasis on the communities of transculturation formed afterwards than on the displacement itself. The presence of ex-colonial immigrants within the territory of a colonial power fractures the imposed binary between colonizers and the racial Other that was previously kept at an oceanic distance. Ex-colonial diasporic peoples make up sizeable minorities within European countries, leading to the colonial powers becoming a site of analysis (Ashcroft et al., 2007).
The South Asian population in Britain, for example, has been a focus of much postcolonial research. One particularly comprehensive study delves into the minutia of South Asian physical and social presence in British culture, highlighting the hybrid “BrAsian” architectural forms that arose from conscious trade-offs between identity and location (Kalra, Sayyid & Ali, 2008, p. 386). Inseparable from the existence of diasporic ex-colonials in European imperial states, and therefore from postcolonial diasporic studies, is the reaction of the white majority to their presence. This raises the issue of degrees of integration and assimilation, and in short, multiculturalism.
Multiple Multiculturalisms
Multiculturalism has become something of an empty signifier, notable for its lack of meaning and catch-all nature. It seems to imply homogeneity and heterogeneity at once, both one unified culture and several equal yet distinct cultures (Bhabha, 1996). Some theorists have disavowed use of the term entirely, pointing to its frequent co-option by the State in nation-building and assimilationist projects (Gunew, 1997). In its current uses, multiculturalism is more efficient in erasing pressing issues of cultural prejudice than in elevating marginalized communities to an equal status or critiquing the imperial origins of prejudice. Three distinct and oppositional forms of multiculturalism can be identified, and it is these that postcolonialism is in tension with: conservative multiculturalism, liberal multiculturalism, and left-liberal multiculturalism (McLaren, 1995).
Conservative multiculturalism traces its roots to colonial essentialism. While outwardly distancing themselves from scientific white supremacy by touting the cognitive equality of the races, conservative multiculturalists present whiteness as the absence of race and the “common culture” to which other ethnicities should aspire (McLaren, 1995, p. 92). The onus of assimilation into the dominant white culture is placed on the racial Other, with the expectation that all markers of otherness are removed in the process.
Liberal multiculturalism posits an intellectual equality among racial populations but, unlike conservative multiculturalism, attributes social inequality to lack of access to educational and social opportunities rather than to “cultural deprivation” or weak values in ethnic communities (McLaren, 1995, p. 96). In this iteration of multiculturalism, there is a belief that modification of institutions can lead to a more equal playing field. Nevertheless, the standard of equality to be reached is still associated with white cultural norms and the larger systems that produced the conditions of inequality are not interrogated. In both liberal and conservative multiculturalism, there is an implication of a “special interest” that exists in opposition to the general interest (Mohan as cited in Gunew, 1997, p. 26). Left-liberal multiculturalism is more cognizant of cultural difference as opposed to a false common culture, but inevitably relies on essentialism to portray difference. An individual’s status as a member of a marginalized group is taken as authority to speak for the whole of the group and a single authentic group experience is posited (McLaren, 1995). Although the intention of left-liberal multiculturalism is to amplify the voices of the oppressed, it dangerously removes lived experiences from a larger historical and theoretical context, rendering them disjointed and contradictory at best.
Peter McLaren (1997) presents an alternative to the established forms of multiculturalism which he terms “critical multiculturalism.” Instead of advancing accommodation to the existing social order, critical multiculturalism envisions the creation of a new social order as a result of the struggle over meaning and culture that is intrinsic to interaction between groups. McLaren frames his idea in terms of poststructuralism, but his work is deeply linked and referential to hybridity and cultural negotiation within the third space (McLaren, 1997; Gunew, 1997).
Conclusion
Theories of postcolonialism are often at odds with each other because they belong to a body of work that aims to deconstruct existing assumptive frameworks that are a product of colonialism. Often, postcolonial criticism itself is unintentionally rooted in the colonial discourse it challenges. Hybridity, which is premised upon an extant yet altered colonial system, acknowledges this reality and builds upon it to offer alternative routes for the advancement of postcolonial peoples. It is an unavoidable truth that cultures are transformed by coming into contact with other cultures, and it is because of this that hybridity is so prominent within the field. Themes of hybridity can be observed in works of fiction as well as theoretical texts. Postcolonialism deals heavily in the interpretation and analysis of texts, but until recently has mainly stayed within the realm of literary theory. Although there are scholars who have applied postcolonial theory to visual media, there is more work that can be done. Since postcolonial themes can be imposed as an intentional textual effect as well as inferred by scholars, they can and should be analyzed in all forms of media. Issues of representation and diversity, which are central to postcolonialism, are omnipresent in contemporary popular discourse, especially in reference to the exclusion and depiction of minority groups on television. My work will attempt to assess this unexplored area of work in the context of hybridity.
References
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1989). The Empire Writes Back. London: Routledge.
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2007). Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bhabha, H. K. (1996). Culture’s In-Between. In S. Hall & P. Du Gay (Eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage Publications.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Danius, S., Jonsson, S., & Spivak, G. (1993). An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Boundary 2,20(2), 24-50. doi:10.2307/303357
Gilbert, H., & Tompkins, J. (1996). Post-Colonial Drama: Theory, Practice, Politics. London: Routledge.
Gunew, S. (1997). Postcolonialism and Multiculturalism: Between Race and Ethnicity. The Yearbook of English Studies, 27, 22-39. doi:10.2307/3509130
Hall, S. (1994). Cultural Identity and Diaspora (L. Chrisman, Ed.). In P. Williams (Ed.), Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kalra, V. S., Sayyid, S., & Ali, N. (2008). A Postcolonial People: South Asians in Britain. New York: Columbia University Press.
McLaren, P. (1995). Chapter III: White Terror and Oppositional Agency: Towards a Critical Multiculturalism. Counterpoints, 4, 87-124. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42974974
Papastergiadis, N. (1997). Tracing Hybridity in Theory. Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism. Werbner, P. & Modood., T. London, Zed Books: 257-281
Ponzanesi, S. (2004). Paradoxes of Postcolonial Culture: Contemporary Women Writers of the Indian and Afro-Italian Diaspora. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rutherford, Jonathan. 1990. The Third Space. Interview with Homi Bhabha. In: Ders. (Hg): Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 207-221.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Spivak, G. C. (1990). Criticism, Feminism, and the Institution. In S. Harasym (Ed.), The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. New York: Routledge.
Trivedi, H. (2015). Postcolonialism. In Dharampal-Frick G., Kirloskar-Steinbach M., Dwyer R., & Phalkey J. (Eds.), Key Concepts in Modern Indian Studies (pp. 211-213). NYU Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15zc7zj.85