Academic Writing | Homi Bhabha’s Postcolonial Theories

Researcher

Academic Writer

Article Writer

Grammarly

Microsoft Word

Homi Bhabha's Theories: Interpreting Postcolonial Discourse in Western Literature

Homi Bhabha, an Indian English critical theorist, is renowned for his numerous neologisms and concepts such as hybridity, ambivalence, mimicry, third space, and cultural difference, which are central to his studies on post-colonialism. This paper will include the inputs and theories put forward by Bhabha in the context and relation to literature, which mainly lie and are hinted at in literary texts of the West.

Post-colonialism is a critical discourse aimed at subverting logocentrism, which sets the ground for hierarchical distinctions between the centre and the periphery. This distinction between the centre and the periphery, reflexively constructs the Other disconnected from truth or origin, thus preventing it from being stable. Postcolonialism refers to the revaluation of prevailing notions through the perspectives of both colonizer and colonized, challenging formerly Eurocentric binary oppositions. Bhabha's concept of hybridity, crucial to postcolonial theory, was first introduced in his work, profoundly influencing postcolonial inquiries. To exemplify his concept of hybridity, Bhabha refers to postcolonial religious practices. Local people who are unfamiliar with colonizers' texts, view the Bible as “signs taken for wonders-as an insignia of colonial authority and a signifier of colonial desire and discipline” (Bhabha 102). Despite their interest in this emerging belief system, they do not assimilate its concepts and take it on faith; instead, they approach it with suspicion by “using the powers of hybridity to resist baptism and to put the project of conversion in an impossible position” (Bhabha 118). The core premise of Homi Bhabha is the idea that cultural identities exist in a fluid and hybrid state. Rejecting cultural essentialism, Bhabha deconstructs binary notions such as Self/Other and Colonizer/Colonized, advocating for the emergence of a hybrid space, also referred to as "third space," "liminal space," or "interstice." He critiques “the fixity and fetishism of identities” (Bhabha 9) and disputes notions of fixated, intact, and authentic cultural features. He chooses to denote the fluidity of cultures as:

“The intervention of the Third Space of enunciation, which makes the structure of meaning and reference an ambivalent process, destroys this mirror of representation in which cultural knowledge is customarily revealed as an integrated, open, expanding code. Such an intervention quite properly challenges our sense of historical identity of culture as a homogenizing, unifying force, authenticated by the originary Past, kept alive in the national tradition of the People […] It is that Third Space, though unrepresentable in itself, which constitutes the discursive conditions of enunciation that ensure that the meaning and symbols of culture have no primordial unity or fixity; that even the same signs can be appropriated, translated, re-historicised and read anew” (Bhabha 37).

Evident from the name, hybridity is a hybrid term itself as it conjugates and blends an assemblage of theories. The act of reading the literary texts can be counted as hybrid as well because of the fact that the dichotomy of East and West meets in the literary text and the cultural hybridity occurs. The reader’s culture and the author’s intended meaning in his text meet on a common ground and create the third space which overcomes the dichotomies between them. In relation, such exemplary works include; Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Edward Said. Certainly! Here's a corrected version of the sentence: According to Bhabha, the paramount term to elucidate cultural relations is "intercultural dialogue" rather than cultural antagonism. Homi Bhabha says it is "the 'inter' – the cutting edge of translation and negotiation, the in-between that carries the burden of the meaning of culture” (Bhabha 38). As literature often denotes a national and cultural identity, it prompts readers to consider the author's cultural background and socio-historical context to be able to interpret the significance of the text and implied cultural meanings.

Literature has been used to affirm and consolidate Western domination and culture, interiorizing Western opinions and political views in the brains of its readers. In order to wield dominance and eradicate the cultural identity of others, they used writings and texts. In particular, novels contribute to the strengthening of colonial perspectives and preconceptions and the formation of a culture full of colonial ideologies and stereotypes. With the help of literary writings, colonizers aimed to make their culture rule over everything and tried to turn the colonized into an imitation of the West. This shows that, if literature is not read carefully it may lead to belittling of self, particularly when the writers are viewed as the only reliable source by readers. This risky way of interpreting literary texts was unveiled by Edward Said. He said, in "Culture and Imperialism" that, “Stories are at the heart of what explorers and novelists say about strange regions of the world; they also become the method the colonized people use to assert their own identity and the existence of their own history” (Said xii). In comprehending the connection between the colonizer and the colonized and the process of colonialism in Europe, Daniel Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe can be counted as a good example. According to Defoe, the main character Crusoe is the embodiment of an Englishman since he is hardworking, making his own choices and eager to colonize indigenous people. Crusoe encounters a local person and gives him the name Friday, teaches him English and gradually domesticates him. Despite the fact that the novel prevents the reader from understanding Friday's feelings, a reader should be troubled about the effects of his relationship with Crusoe on his own identity. It is seen that Friday is only 'mimicking' Crusoe and modernity. Bhaba tried to reveal the inconsistencies innate in colonial discourse to emphasize the ambivalence of the colonizer in recognition of his standpoint against 'the other'. The appearance of 'the other' in the text reveals the ambivalence inherent in colonial discourse, undermining claims of absolute dominance. Bhabha asserts that “the who of agency bears no mimetic immediacy or adequacy of representation. It can only be signified outside the sentence” (Bhabha 271). Instead of presenting a fixed truth, the writing offers various interpretations that depend on the reader's cultural background and perspective. Bhabha withstands the idea that language is merely imitative and perceives writing as a settlement and manifestation of hybridity. He states: “When the words of the master become the site of hybridity-the warlike sign of the native-then we may not only read between the lines, but also seek to change the often coercive reality that they so lucidly contain” (Bhabha 121).

In conclusion, cultural domination and control with the misleading perspectives of the colonizers often involve the creation of an artificial 'other,' a concept that is central to postcolonialism. This dynamic is reflected in Western texts, which highlight the presence of a 'third space' where the author, reader, and text intersect, revealing the shifting nature of logocentrism. By questioning stable binaries and the origins of national identity, the concept of the 'third space' redefines traditional understandings and introduces new perspectives. It is clear that Bhabha's premise of work expanded the philosophical dimension of the literary world, created a backdoor for thought and enabled these issues to be conceded.