Hybridity theory came into formulation in the 1980s to create a fluid space for the British Black and Asian ‘minorities’ living in Britain (Nasta 178). The purpose of hybridity theory is the renegotiation of previously articulated formation of ethnic identity to minimize the gap between binaries of dominant vs minority, or white vs black. While theorizing the interrelated terms of hybridity, diaspora, modernity and transcultural space, different theorists approached it differently. Stuart Hall focuses on representation, transcultural position and ethnicity. Gilroy focuses on modernity and double consciousness. Homi K. Bhabha focuses on the translation and transnational position that questions the nationalistic boundaries and explains the mimetic behaviour of the representative and constant hybridization. Robert Young focuses on the racial factors of hybridity which creates the colonial desire to dominate the hybrid subjects. For Hall and Gilroy, the Diaspora was created by and through differentiation.

Theorists highlight the contradictory emotions, the ambivalent experiences in the diasporic notion of belonging, and their identification with and against territorial social and cultural formations, especially as they are shaped through processes of inclusion, in their work on diaspora. They root diaspora in its effective dislocations between ‘locations of residence and locations of belonging’ to expose political possibilities of this rupture (Raghuram and Sahoo 11). It is argued, that “‘ethnicity’ as a concept had to be redefined, opened out, to break down the differences which had always existed within constructions of ‘ethnic’ groups – whether white or black” (Nasta 178). While there was a rise of racial and ethnic stereotypes seen in the 70s and 80s, it became emergent to reconsider nationalism, ethnicity, and cultural identification. These defining lines of nationalism and cultural identification are somehow interconnected with ethnicity. As Hall states, “It [Ethnicity] insists on difference – on the fact that every identity is placed, positioned in a culture, a language, a history” (Qtd in Nasta 178-9) (ref. No. 31).  While Hall focuses on ethnicity, as language is the factor of representation, within this process, through creolization and mixtures of language creates a form of resistance, negotiation and modernity. This form of modernity achieved by the black community suggests temporal dislocation, loss of identity and a double consciousness where the protagonist is aware of his hybrid position. Paul Gilroy defines this dislocation and double consciousness as ‘black modernity’ where the representatives display uncertainties of ‘postmodern and post-imperial age’ (Nasta 179). Unlike Paul Gilroy and Hall, Young does not focus on ethnicity, instead, his findings suggest, “questions of cultural hybridity in the postwar years became inextricably and almost obsessively focused on colour as a visible sign of racial difference” (qtd in Nasta 179). 

The focus remained more on colour-based hybridity, which implemented the disentanglement of cultural admixture and fusion (Nasta 180). However, one thing that is noticeable here irrespective of race and ethnicity is the question of ‘double consciousness’. This double consciousness of keeping cultural purity intact and positively hybridizing to decrease the ‘difference’ can also polarize the colonial desire and subversive ego which theorists call ‘blackness’ (180). Young’s theory of hybridity suggests that hybridity works in two ways simultaneously. While it creates a familiar self to the dominant self, on the other hand, creates a diluted self that distances the self from the ‘pure self’.

Cultural Identity Theory by Stuart Hall:

While discussing cultural identity and diaspora, Hall focuses on the transcultural position and the representation of the subject. He suggests focusing on the subject’s “Positions of enunciation” rather than thinking of the subject’s identity as a completed one (Hall, Cultural Identity and Diaspora 223). The identity of the subject is in the process of becoming, constructing within the boundaries of cultural representation. There are two ways to represent the cultural identity. One is that the cultural identity is a complete package of collective “one true self” (223). This self is a creation of a true self which is in Stuart’s opinion “more superficial or artificially imposed selves” (Cultural Identity and Diaspora 223). Therefore, In this representation, since it portrays the collective image of a cultural self, there is no individual self but a collective sense of self where it depicts the whole diasporic community. Therefore, there remains no possibility of representing the individual self and what the individual has lost in the transition.

The other is an imaginary reunification of self where the representative finds out his true self through navigating his being and belonging. Cultural identity in this sense, “is a matter of ‘becoming’ as well as of ‘being’. It belongs to the future as much as to the past. It is not something which already exists, transcending place, time, history, and culture” (Cultural Identity and Diaspora 225).  The second representation of exploring belonging is the actual way of finding someone’s self through the loss of heritage and colonial trauma. Therefore, Hall argues, “Cultural identity is not a fixed essence at all, lying unchanged outside history and culture. It is not some universal and transcendental spirit inside us on which history has made no fundamental mark” (Cultural Identity and Diaspora 226).  Through this process, one can differentiate between the Western self and the other, where the sense of otherness is not a pure one but lies in translation and representation of difference. On the other hand, The tendency of searching for roots in diasporic literature is not necessarily longing for the actual nation, but an imaginary land where the culture resides beyond the establishment of a boundary. Therefore, Homi K. Bhabha defines culture as “a strategy of survival is both transnational and translational” (The Location of Culture 172).

Diasporic literature tends to create an “Imaginative geography and history” in Edward Said’s term and “an Imagined community”  in Benedict Anderson’s term (Hall, Cultural Identity and Diaspora 232). This imaginary homeland and community create a bridge between the present, past and future where the retrospective colonial, postcolonial or neocolonial subject creates his nostalgia for not being able to connect with his roots. The term diaspora coined by Stuart Hall does not denote a literal term but a metaphorical term where the representation and experience of a diaspora is depicted “not by essence or purity, but by the recognition of a necessary heterogeneity and diversity; by a conception of ‘identity’ which lives with and through, not despite, difference; by hybridity” (Cultural Identity and Diaspora 235).  The diasporic identity, therefore, to keep its essence pure, must produce a constant manner of transformation and maintain its boundaries of difference. However, the main essence of this diasporic identity is to create nostalgia and an urge to reconnect with its past, yet the reality is constantly fast-forwarding him to somewhere else. Therefore, the hybrid subject is constantly coping with the dominant society to keep him grieved with the present or the reality and by longing for his roots. As a result, the hybrid subject must adjust his roots to create a new sense of belonging.

Hall’s experience of England as a home is portrayed in his autobiography, Familiar Stranger (2017). Due to his class status, he did not face racism, but he faced social othering. He had “to become a practical reader of England, of Englishness” to assimilate with the English society (Hall, Familiar Stranger 203). His experience of England was “familiar and strange, homely and unhomely, domesticated at the same time a thoroughly dangerous place for the likes of me” (Hall, Familiar Stranger 203). While Hall feels dislocated, his experience of Englishness is settledness, fluidity, and letting go (Hall, Familiar Stranger 203). Outside the colonial history and Postcolonialism, Hall admits his experience of Britishness or England was not as terrible as the other migrants due to his class belonging. He knew he would not be an English to the British. However, he also knew that he would not be a first-class scholar of English literature for not being educated enough, or witty but “because such a vocation seemed to depend on an innate, unreflective belongingness, knowing the social grammar of the place; an ability to feel instinctively the pulse of the culture behind a text” (Hall, Familiar Stranger 205).

What Hall mostly missed between the English society and his belonging is the shared cultural codes where he could tune his taste of pleasure and desire with the English community which Barth defines as a connotative framework (Hall, Familiar Stranger 207). The connotative framework works as a natural mental process of sharing a commonality in the community where others do not become part of the commonality. From a cultural perspective, Hall argues, “deconstructs meaning not only at the level of specific content but also of these connotative frameworks. It is this structural level that language and ideology, or language and power, connect” (Hall, Familiar Stranger 207). This notion of connotative framework creates a boundary between him and achieving the Englishness or English identity which keeps him unsettled or dislocated. He is aware of his contamination of both the English and Jamaican culture, yet he could not claim any of it due to his unsettledness. His unsettledness created a rather nostalgia from which he thinks of Jamaica, yet he could not think of moving there. At the same time, he knows he cannot be an Englishman, yet he cannot come out of the Nostalgia of not belonging there. It is a way of creating an isolated or exile mood from which he enjoys the nostalgia of belonging nowhere. Therefore, he argues, “Indeed, I feel less English now than when I first arrived. Cultural identity is not fixed. It is a moving feast. But it is at the same time remarkably stubborn” (Hall, Familiar Stranger 210). While Western or British societies are concerned regarding the subjectivity of representation, Subjecthood is not a huge issue for Hall (Hall, Familiar Stranger 210). Stuart Hall is more concerned with the othering of non-Western individuals and the commodification of their cultures.

Hybridity Theory by Paul Gilroy:

Paul Gilroy focuses on the black community’s modernity and double consciousness to hybridise and resist the dominant culture. According to him, acquiring modernity can pave the way to creating an ‘authentic “blackness”‘ (Lebron). When the black community gains modernity, it can help them understand what they are lacking and what they need to readjust. Gilroy also highlights the limitations of representation in portraying the colonial history of black slavery, as it consistently presents the story from only two viewpoints (Lebron). Therefore, diversifying representation by modernising the representative is crucial to avoid stereotypes. Additionally, Gilroy suggests double consciousness regarding modernism, so that the representative remains aware of the loss of his heritage and gains in this process. Double consciousness works as a mechanism for resisting the cliches of cultural purity, where someone can defend their position by recreating their history. While European modernism, due to its egalitarian aspect, is exclusively limited to European societies, Gilroy argues that the idea of modernism, interrelated with the desire for democracy, cultural experimentalism, and humanism, cannot be limited to one single culture (Lebron). Therefore, the black community needs to adopt the idea of modernism within their cultural boundaries by resisting Western cultural cliches through double consciousness.

Gilroy primarily examines Black Atlantic slavery from the perspective of black bodies’ economic and social construction, which can yield profit for their owners. Slave traders frequently depict slave bodies as inferior commodities, forcing them to leave their African roots behind. As a result of their commodification and forced relocation, they ended up in Europe and America, dependent on the white community. Even after the abolition of slave trading, the uprooted black community remains dependent on the dominant society. Gilroy discovers that ‘the narrative of global white supremacy’ not only narrates their stories but also commodifies both black bodies and black culture (Lebron). Therefore, Gilroy claims that black culture is an important pillar of humanist tradition, which creates the bridge between the black body and its roots (Lebron). It serves as a cultural marker for the black community, enabling them to reconnect with their origins and avoid losing their identity by adopting the European modernist tradition. However, Gilroy also stresses his worries about the ossification and falsification of the unity of the black community by acquiring individual modernity and having no common ground within them (Lebron). Therefore, he suggests a commonality where the black community can interrelate themselves through expression of culture and identity (Lebron). Furthermore, he suggests not looking for a singular rooting and routing of their origin, but rather a playful and analytical view of the representation.

Regarding the playful and analytical nature of the representation, Gilroy suggests creating an experiential space where black culture inaugurates and resists its commodification. This experiential space will create a way of looking at black culture from a static perspective. What Gilroy mostly focuses on is understanding ‘the relationship between black history and the rise of the West’ (Lebron).  Racism in America causes black people to rethink their sense of self and their existential hooks. Gilroy says that talking about the importance of roots and routes hurts the pure appeal of both Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism because it focuses on the flows, exchanges, and things in between that make it hard to centre (Gilroy 190).

What Gilroy suggests here is to create fragmented versions of black culture rather than looking at it as one single culture. These fragmented cultures would aid in adjusting an individual’s space, enabling the black body to modernize its cultural identity. As a result, individuals will be able to reduce the burden of the desire to recognise the forms of ethnic and racial hybridity, which will help to reconsider modernity and race side by side (Lebron). Gilroy, on the other hand, suggests that this theoretical framework does not necessarily defend ‘the socio-political conservative views of blacks’, but rather provides a resource to fragment the argumentation differently by creating a common ground for both black and white (Lebron). At the same time, the shared values here will connect with both white and black communities, helping the black community cross race barriers.

When it comes to discussing authenticity, Gilroy focuses on two aspects: the essentiality of black identity and interpretation (Lebron). The essentiality pertains to the crucial step of reevaluating the value of culture, which requires a reconsideration and reaffirmation of the authentication question. Therefore, it is crucial to concentrate on the interpretation process, where Gilroy proposes a normative interpretation or a descriptive argumentation that streamlines the authenticity sensibility (Lebron). Consequently, “the logic and categories of racial metaphysics remain undisturbed, but the relationship between the terms undergoes an inversion” (Gilroy 191). However, cultural production, which is “sometimes ancient, always anti-modern,” may still evoke fear because it shares similarities with the energy of white supremacy (Gilroy 191). If this becomes an ideological factor, it could potentially lead to the creation of either black supremacy or a self-constructed practice that falls under the purview of white supremacy (Lebron). Gilroy suggests putting black culture and modernity side by side to create opportunities for modernization within the experiential space.

While discussing black modernity and double consciousness, Gilroy also looks at the development of enlightenment, secularism, democracy, capitalism, and rationalism. Given that these concepts are exclusive to Western society, we must theorise and modernise black culture as a crucial instrument to forge an alternative enlightenment narrative in the West (Lebron). This feature does not question the validity of the Enlightenment in the West; rather, it creates an opposing view of the black culture remaining in the West. As it is noticeable that the democracy practiced in the West is quite often criticised by the black critiques of racial discrimination, it limits the black community itself by not letting go beyond these self-created barriers.

Hybridity Theory by Homi K. Bhabha:

Hybridity is a theory associated with the works of Homi K. Bhaba concerning “the creation of new transcultural forms within the contact zone produced by colonization”(Ashcroft et al. 118). When a subject encounters a different culture, the subject tends to hybridize himself within the fixities of his identity.  In Bhabha’s words, hybridity is a process of becoming by passing the dominance of ‘the productivity of colonial power, its shifting forces, and fixities’ (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 112). It is a reverse process to adjust the self to resist the dominance and at the same time, adapt to the dominant culture in a manner that hardly differentiates between the pure and the impure self. In this process, the subject modernizes and naturalizes himself to differentiate himself from his essential diasporic view and ‘unsettles the mimetic and narcissistic demands of colonial power’ (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 112). Hybridity focuses on the constant shaping of minority cultures in the postcolonial period. According to Ashcroft, the form of hybridity comes in different forms such as “linguistic, cultural, political, racial, etc (118).

Post-colonialism in the late twentieth century has a new meaning of its own. It does not mean the after-effects of colonialism anymore; rather, it means something beyond the impact of colonialization. Bhabha states, “The ‘beyond’ is neither a new horizon nor a leaving behind of the past. Beginnings and endings may be the sustaining myths “of the middle years; but in the fin de siecle, we find ourselves in the moment of transit, where space and time cross to produce complex figures of difference and identity, past and present, inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion” (The Location of Culture 1).  The contemporary era can no longer be conceptualized as a rupture or a connection with the preceding or succeeding periods; our existence is disclosed through its “discontinuities, inequalities, and minorities” (Ashcroft et al. 131). Bhabha’s idea of going beyond post-colonial is not to limit the understanding of the narrative but to assert an understanding of the liminal space that the collision of cultures creates.

The concept of hybridity is often employed as a useful framework situated at the periphery or intersection of diaspora, characterizing the blending of cultures that occurs when the diasporic community encounters the host society during the process of migration (Hutnyk 79). For Bhabha, identity is not a fixed entity; rather, it’s constantly hybridising itself by adapting ideas from cultures, nations, religions, races, and ethnicities. Rather, hybridity suggests that identity and culture are constantly evolving and changing because of the interactions between different cultures and social groups. This theory challenges the notion of a singular, homogenous culture and highlights the importance of recognizing and celebrating diversity in society. Therefore, the focus of “class” and “gender” as a singular identity changed its route to the subject positions of ethnicity, gender, age, cohort, organization, location, and sexual orientation that permeate every claim to identity in the modern day (Bhabha 1). Additionally, colonial powers construct identity as an object for their own benefit (Fay and Haydon 6). Homi K. Bhabha challenges the standards and norms of identity provided by both the East and the West. He does not mean to create a stereotype of the defining lines, but rather tries to defend the idea of othering, which signifies ‘different from, and often inferior to, the “self” (Fay and Haydon 11). The two distinctive lines are the East and West, and his theoretical approach is to minimise the gaps between these civilizations. As per Fay and Haydon, the West is ‘cultured, civilised, and industrious’; the East, on the other hand, is ‘prone to self-indulgent pleasure, lazy, and uncivilised’ (11). Therefore, a bridge between these two civilisations is necessary, where hybridization can reduce barriers and foster mutual engagement and interrogation (Fay and Haydon 11). Hybridity, therefore, stands for the mixture of identities in the realm of all different contacts with cultures, nations, ideas, languages, materials, and all other materials shared between them (Fay and Haydon 11).

This process of hybridization works through the mimetic behaviour of the subject, who does not assimilate to the dominant society but rather mimics the dominant society. The idea of mimicking works as a potential strategy for adjusting oneself. During this process, the individual modernizes while simultaneously resisting the power of colonialism to prevent subversion. Therefore, the mimicry sometimes works as ‘mockery’ by using a different accent to ridicule the situation (Fay and Haydon 11). The mockery here works as a translation of emotion and language by ‘exposing the disturbing effects of stereotypes’ (Fay and Haydon 29). According to Bhabha, it is not necessary to directly oppose the colonisers; rather, the resistance can work through ridiculing the condition. Homi K. Bhabha suggests an “endless mixing of hybridity and mockery at the heart of mimicry” to resist the unnatural and unquestionable dominance of the dominant society (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 29). Bhabha defines it as resistance through adaptation, where direct action is merely necessary (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 36). Through this process, colonial culture becomes a matter of negligence, less dominant, and resistant to the misrepresentation of cultural substances. Besides, The rigid self within this process can create a fluid sense of self within the discourse of his own identity, where identity has no static point to question. As a result, the reader will have the ability to engage themselves and unfold the meaning of the writing. It is a never-ending process of generating ideas, which in turn hybridises subjectivity.

It is further important to differentiate the hybrid subject from the community. Hybridity and community values are inherently antagonistic when it comes to achieving individual modernization. A diasporic self needs to differentiate between his cultural values and the nation in which he resides.  The diasporic community raises the question of belonging to a race, a gender, a class, or a generation that cannot supersede the national boundary. Therefore, to find a sense of belonging, a diasporic self must achieve individual modernity. To achieve this modernity, postcolonial and black critiques question ‘forms of contestatory subjectivities’ in order to uproot ‘the politics of binary opposition’ (Bhabha, Nation and Narration 224). However, Hall has a different view on it, where he suggests having ‘no necessary or eternal belongingness’ (Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal 9). On the other hand, Homi K. Bhabha urges the ‘right to narrate’ from a nationalistic view to break the shackles of symbolic citizenship and myths of belonging (Bhabha, Nation and Narration 15). In his term, national identity can fill up the gap between the loss of heritage and work as a metaphorical language (Bhabha, Nation and Narration 180). Therefore, his concern is not nationalism but rather ‘sources of cultural identity’ that create national belonging and its history (Bhabha, Nation and Narration 180). While nations thrive on their national culture, it is important to break down the location of the culture so that the diasporic self can create a new sense of belonging by adjusting his roots. He further shows concern that these narratives may not create a nationalistic past as an ‘anterior space, which may singularize the nation’s cultural totality (Bhabha 210). The narrative would work as ‘the site of an ambivalent identification’  where the diasporic self would adjust his agonistic position (Bhabha 210). Translation here would work as a bridge between the societies where a new form would take place as ‘newness’ and be unable to translate itself to the dominant society. This ‘newness’ is defined by Walter Benjamin as ‘foreignness of languages’ from where the inability to translate would work as an ability to translate through ‘performance of cultural translation’ (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 227).

Hybridity Theory Proposed by Young:

While Bhabha emphasizes the concept of ‘newness’ in defining hybridity, Robert Young concentrates on racial factors. Robert Young observes that Britishness is closely associated with whiteness, symbolizing ‘fixity, certainty, centeredness, and homogeneity as something unproblematically identical with itself’ (Young 2). Furthermore, Britishness plays a significant role in fostering a sense of fluidity, uncertainty, and otherness that distinguishes individuals beyond established boundaries (Young 2). Therefore, diasporic identity with attained or unattained modernity remains marginal. Intriguingly, Britishness is more class, race, and gender based. Young argues that this tendency to define lines comes from ‘colonial desire’ (2). According to Gargi Bhattacharya, the English people impose their definition of Britishness on non-English people (4). While diasporas can learn English by being bilingual, Britishness will help the English people maintain their cultural purity. This process of keeping cultural purity intact started in the nineteenth century as ‘processes of unification and differentiation’ (4). While this process maintains the integrity and purity of the British identity, it also fosters ‘a Manichean division’ that results in a static division between the self and others. This creates a problem when extremist or fundamentalist groups become ‘representative’ and create their distinct pure class of identity (Anthias and Yuval-Davis 175).

 The hybridity of the diasporas is determined by the pidgin and creolized forms of language, which show resistance towards the colonizers. Hyam argues that this acquired resistance gained through the use of language preserves two things: the “major product of contact,” or racial contact, and “sexuality” (Hyam 211). Yet the interrelationship of race and sex with language creates a form of hybridity that perverts and degenerates the question of racialized formulations of the past in social discourse (Young 5). While in the nineteenth century, hybridity signified the mixture of two breeds of animals, plants, or any other substances, racial factors in human beings bring different questions into discussion. Therefore, Young suggests not to look at human hybridization in a different way than this approach (6). Later European societies adopted a hierarchical perspective of the animal world, placing humans at the top and placing Africans at the bottom, similar to apes or humans (Young 6). German anthropologist Waitz argues that such forms of acculturation had their political agenda (qtd. in Young 6). The white politics underlie these types of acclimations, aiming to assert their superiority over other species. The racial hierarchy is ‘not only excusable but fully justifiable’ whenever the lower species obstruct the path of the white man  (Waitz 13). In Europe, the debate over racial purity and hybridity resurfaces every few decades to serve the political purpose. While racial impurity remained a concern, European tradition aimed to maintain the purity of their racial and national identities by reducing fertility. Yet it was represented as if it were a natural selection process.  In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler asserts that nature itself prevents racial impurity by “refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or by limiting the fertility of later offspring”  (Hitler 258). Huxley shares a similar perspective with Hitler, asserting that hybrids are ‘absolutely infertile’ due to their inability to maintain their racial identity over time (Huxley 423–4).

Speaking of natural selection, while Hitler believed that nature itself maintains racial purity, Darwin, on the other hand, suggested that there is no distinction in natural selection between species and varieties (Darwin 288). To prove his argument, he focused on the difficulty of finding species roots and species divergence. Regarding the infertility of hybrid species in the chapter ‘Hybridism’, he argues, “Though the general rule of infertility may apply, it is never an absolute rule’ (Darwin 271). His doctrine of hybridity suggests that these factors are far more complex than the general infertility of the hybrid. However, it is also important to notice that scientific advancement during Darwin’s period was limited, making it tough to break the secrets of hybridity. Therefore, the problem of species was not a prior matter of discussion, but hybridity still remained a matter of discussion (Young 13). Knox upholds Charles Darwin’s theory, asserting that the division of humans into ‘races’ renders humankind ‘perfectly distinct’ (Young 14). Instead of examining the vitality of single-time reproduction, he concentrates on the ability to reproduce for generations, asserting that hybrid races exist through their assimilation into the dominant race, a phenomenon that makes hybrid races non-existent in the world (15). Knox claimed here that if hybrid species reproduce, they assimilate into the dominant race after several reproductions or generations. Following the rejection of his claim, Knox examined ‘the degradation of humanity’, citing instances in the central states of America where hybrids, ‘like all exotics, have degenerated’ (14-5). His claim became prominent, yet the tension of hybridity remained both racially and culturally.

Hybridity used in the social context ‘circulate[s] within the ambivalent axis of desire and aversion: a structure of attraction’ (18). It is a dialogical structure of repulsion in which different people from different cultures intermix while a distinct feature remains visible (18). The structure reveals the rising tensions of conflicting cultures and defines itself through racial ideologies (18). Furthermore, it raises questions about the necessity to reconsider social norms and cultural production. In colonial production, hybridity works as a mechanism to display differentiation based on racial and sexual identification (18). Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak notices women’s position as ‘a place of tangible production’ in any theory of production (Spivak, In Other Worlds 79). Therefore, it is crucial to observe how sexuality is positioned in the social realm, as Spivak perceives it as a “historically muted subject” (Spivak, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ 295).

Bakhtin looks at hybridization from philological point of view. Bringing together two languages from distinct cultures creates a different realm of consciousness. Bakhtin sees consciousness as a bilingual position that separates ‘from one another by an epoch, by social differentiation, or by some other factor’ (358). It fosters the capacity to interpret a situation in which the translation gap is filled with diverse meanings. In Bakhtin’s terminology, it is an ability to ‘ironize and unmask others’ by remaining in the same context (qtd. in Young 19). While the bilingual position creates a subconscious positioning of the hybrid subject, Bakhtin advocates for intentional hybridity as a means of revealing two distinct meanings. These different meanings arise when words from two distinct languages intersect to form a hybrid construction (Bakhtin 305). On the other hand, Bakhtin differentiates the unintentional or subconscious bilingual position from the intentional hybridity through the process of creolization. Bakhtin observes that a subconscious bilingual position can produce a new form of language with a new meaning. It subconsciously merges two different cultures and creates one single meaning. Therefore, the subconscious bilingual position fosters a fusion of two cultures, creating an organic hybridity. On the other hand, intentional hybridity serves more as a political than cultural translation (Young 20). However, Homi K. Bhabha defines Bakhtin’s intentional hybridity as a way of active resistance against the colonizers. Hall, on the other hand, criticises these simplified differentiations, saying they limit the narrative style while leaving no space for the articulation of language. These processes, according to Hall, ‘constantly overlap and interweave’ when employed in cultural politics (qtd. in Young 23). In fact, the cultural and political spheres should not be looked at from different angles, since both are intertwined with the practices of slavery and colonisation.

Young thinks of hybridity as a ‘raceless chaos’ which is incapable of producing any stable form but instead something close to Homi K. Bhabha’s term, a restless, uneasy, interstitial form (Young 23-4). Young’s rationale for emphasizing the sexual aspects, stemming from the ‘hybridity-induced anxiety’, is to maintain racial distinction, as the primary focus was on interracial hybrids (Young 24). Therefore, Young suggests looking at the hybrid subjects from a heterosexual perspective, while hybrid characters have same-sex sexual interests as well (Young 24). Besides, Hybridity generates a disruptive force that challenges cultural assimilation to some degree, as hybrid subjects question norms from both sides. Simultaneously, it fosters a novel form of cultural assimilation, where the output of hybrid subjects carries two distinct meanings in two distinct cultures. As Young states, “hybridization can also consist of the forcing of a single entity into two or more parts, a severing of a single object into two, turning sameness into difference” (Young 24). Therefore, it affects both sides by dividing or multiplying cultural aspects. Consequently, Young suggests that there is no permanent or specific terminology to define hybridity. It is ‘the impossibility of essentialism’ that questions the idea of pure race and culture (Young 25).

Bernal asserts that colonial desire, whether directly or indirectly, infiltrates modern Western knowledge (qtd. in Young 152). There is always a tendency to show cultural superiority towards Eastern society. Edward Said denotes that there is no alternative view of the Orientals to the Western, while Orientalism itself propagates a ‘will to govern over the Orient’ (Said 95). Therefore, the representation of Eastern societies, no matter how strong, does not have an impact on Western societies. Bhabha, conversely, adopts a distinct perspective on Said’s methodology, emphasizing the ‘instrumental construction of knowledge’ and the ‘ambivalent protocols of fantasy and desire’ that function effectively when the subject undergoes hybridization (qtd. in Young 153).

Mimicry, Ambivalence and Third Space:

Mimicry is a concept that explores the complexity of cultural assimilation and the ambivalent relationship between the colonizer and the colonized cultures. It involves a form of imitation and mimicry of the dominant culture in the process of colonial encounters, where the colonized attempt to imitate and adopt the dominant culture as a form of resistance. The act of cultural appropriation can manifest in various forms, ranging from a straightforward replication or emulation of a particular culture to more intricate or paradoxical methods, such as utilizing another culture to reaffirm one’s own convictions or concepts (Fay and Haydon 10). Homi K. Bhabha defines Mimicry as “the subject of a difference that is almost the same but not quite” (86). It is a form of subversion and resistance, as it allows the colonized to adopt and adapt the dominant culture to their own needs and desires. The issue with mimicry lies in its ability to reveal “double vision”, which not only exposes the ambivalence of colonial communication but also undermines its power (88).

Mimicry can take different forms. To describe the mimicry, Bhabha looks not at the subject but at the location and space that the subject creates around and inserts itself. It is a space where ‘a range of contradictory places coexist’ (Bhabha 47). This place embodies the orientalist stereotypes that the subject has created and continues to inhabit. This place creates a ‘metaphysical philosophy of self-doubt’, where the subject remains rigid and does not come out (Bhabha 47). Bhabha argues that the “subaltern instance subverts any binary or sublatory ordering of power and sign” (Bhabha 55). While the female body of the colonised is invisible in the western periphery, it ‘initiates a space of intercutting that articulates politics, psyche, sexuality, and race’ (Bhabha 56). It challenges the traditional view of good and evil, as well as the invisibility of sexual subjectivity in the political sphere, especially for women. Consequently, the female authors propose a significant sense of identity through “cultural and sexual difference,” transforming her invisibility into a form of revenge (Bhabha 56). This self-transformation of emotions through identification functions as mimicry, thereby diminishing the female body’s objectification. 

Fetishism and stereotypes create the boundaries of identities. While fetishism works as a ‘disavowal of difference’, it creates a hindrance by not recognising the sexual difference (Bhabha 74). As a result, fetishism creates stereotypes and identities at the same time. Fetishism aims to elevate the difference to a level of eminence, absoluteness, and fantasy, viewing the colonised subject as a “misfit” (Bhabha 75). Bhabha suggests that the stereotypes created in representation are therefore not a given reality, a simplification rather than an arrested or fixated form of representation of the subject (Bhabha 75). In this representation, mimicry serves as a camouflage with a double-aged meaning, where the subject functions as a strategist within the context of colonial power and knowledge. He is aware of his position, but at the same time, he resists fetishism and stereotypes by asserting himself to be in the same condition that the coloniser wants him to be.

Mimicry also functions as ‘an ironic compromise,’ necessitating a reconstruction of the self through reformation and recognition while maintaining a subtle difference (Bhabha 86). Mimicry consistently maintains differences while simultaneously making them so subtle that the coloniser finds it difficult to distinguish between them. It also works as ‘a sign of inappropriateness’, which signifies an imminent threat to general knowledge and colonial power (Bhabha 86). Here, the threat is produced by mockery rather than direct resistance. The process of mimicking is not something new; rather, as Bhabha suggests, this practice was always there. The English have also adopted this practice. The establishment of the English colony in India led to the creation of ‘a class of persons Indian in blood and colour but English in tastes’, a practice known as mimicry (Bhabha 87). As a result, Bhabha proposes that the English school create imitation men, who then transform into Indian sahibs with British tastes. This process raises questions about the nation’s naturalisation process, particularly in relation to racial and cultural factors (Bhabha 87). In this case, writing functions as a “mode of representation,” where the author rejects history by mocking the colonial imperial power (Bhabha 87-8). Therefore, in the writing, the representative does not act against colonial power but rather creates a double vision through ‘the partial representation’ (88). This double vision, or partial representation, is a process of re-articulating identity that does not seek its essence but distances it (Bhabha 89).

According to Freud, a representative’s fate is determined by their partial representation and the combination of cultural and racial factors (191). Although the origin combines elements of both old and new cultures, the authority figure bears the responsibility for their imitation, not the subject. In this sense, Bhabha suggests that mimicry works like metonymy, in which the representation acts as a figure of speech to represent something else than it actually is. However, the metonymic act of mimicry works as ‘the effect of hybridity’ (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 120). While Fanon defines mimicking as a process of ‘turn white or disappearing’, Bhabha defines it as unmasking the whiteness through camouflage (Fanon 1181–82).

 Fay and Haydon state that ambivalence occurs due to “recognized stereotypes for what they were and the persistent belief in the innate and permanent “backwardness” of colonized populations (42).  The dichotomy between the colonized and the colonizer is intricately linked to the concept of radical ambivalence (Ashcroft et al., 61). Ambivalence is a process of riddling the narrative, which is a way of expressing bitterness under colonial power’s surveillance (Bhabha 106). As Conrad says in his book, The Heart of Darkness, ‘The Horror! The Horror!’, it represents the transformation of colonial bitterness into something utterly horrific. Moreover, although the harrowing encounter pertains to the external realm, its inner essence yearns for a deeper element that stabilises the agonistic colonial space’ (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 110) . The conjugation of two cultures (through language, race, etc.) creates this middle space. Bhabha suggests, “[Space] regulates the ambivalence between origin and displacement, discipline, desire, mimesis, and repetition” (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 110). While the author acknowledges the presence of authority, he tries to create a manipulative meaning of words that fills the space between these factors. Besides, the attainment of modernity brings up the question of ‘epistemic, ethnocentric, and nationalist intelligibility’ (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 110). Attaining modernity plays a crucial role in understanding the intentions of the coloniser, and through ambivalent experiences, the representative articulates the transcultural and racial gaps between the coloniser and the colonised (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 110).

To understand the ambivalence of hybridity, Bhabha suggests not looking at the inversion occurring through hybridity but at the ‘effect’ (Bhabha 113). It does not necessarily go into depth to solve the in betweenness or restlessness, but it is a ‘dialectical play of ‘recognition’’ (Bhabha 114). It does not create a singular form of the self by combining two cultures; instead, it creates two double selves that reflect as one. The problem with double imagery is not identity, but rather the condition or desire that colonialism creates. It counteracts the effects of colonial disavowals by addressing the issues of colonial representation and individuation (Bhabha 114). Bhabha proposes that we shouldn’t rectify the hybridity-induced difference, as it doesn’t exist. He proposes that the barrier in question is not cultural but rather the ‘boundary between frame of reference and frame of mind’ (Bhabha 114). Bhabha further denotes that the aim of the hybrid representation’s ambivalence is not to indicate ‘impossibility’ and ‘unpredictability’ but to prevent authoritarianism (Bhabha 114). The intriguing aspect resides in the potential for meaninglessness and the resurgence of chaos, which authoritarian control imposes dominantly. 

Through ambivalence, the doubling process creates a fluid space within the rigid self. It replicates the concept of ‘the fixed and empty presence of authority’ by generating various expressions of the self. It creates a self-pluralizing effect in which the authority struggles to discover its true self. This doubling or pluralizing occurs through displacement, in which the subject is limited to a national identity, binaries, rules, and borderlines. These boundaries, or binaries of nationality, do not actually signify the national borders but rather the borderline created in the mind. The mind creates and formulates binaries and boundaries within a “separate space” (Bhabha 119).

The previously discussed identity processing posits that ambivalence is not a sign of assimilation but rather a manifestation of colonialism, achieved through the integration of power and cultural knowledge (Bhabha 120). Looking at the construction of modern-day India, Bhabha suggests that the ‘presence’ of colonial governmentality dominates the ideals of authenticity, representation, raciality, and individuation of identity’ (Bhabha 130). If we connect the Indian subcontinent’s origin to the Aryan race, then India represents an ‘archaic past’ (Bhabha 130). If India serves as a symbol of colonial authority, it also articulates the knowledge of colonial authority (Bhabha 130). In this context, India symbolises the colonial era’s uncertainty and the ambiguous nature of its enunciation (Bhabha 130). Therefore, the ambivalence here represents the relationship between the enslaved masters and the unmastered slaves (Bhabha 131).

Although Bhabha suggests that mimicry and hybridization keep the difference marginal. Ambivalent experiences produce a strategy for negotiating acknowledged differentiation. The acknowledgement here works as an assurance of uncertainty about identity and culture; therefore, it ‘haunts the discursive subject and taunts the enlightened liberal subject of culture itself’ (Bhabha 131). What is more intriguing in this context is the threat of meaninglessness and the reversion to chaos, which Stephen, in the 19th century, suggests the subject should not ignore, as it could lead to an anomalous incident within the British government of India (Bhabha 132-3). Such anomalous occurrences may lead to the impossibility of choosing any culture (Bhabha 133). Furthermore, it raises the question of the displacement of truth, which exists both within and beyond the hybridity of images of governance (Bhabha 134). Bhabha demonstrates ambivalence by discussing the cultural doctrines of Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, emphasizing the lack of cultural translation when these doctrines coexist side by side. Lack of such space creates a form of ambivalence where the protagonist is unable to choose any truth, regardless of his rational or moral values (Bhabha 135). This empty space is where Bhabha suggests the translation of culture lies, and this is where the double image of the self emerges. This double image creates a vision of unimagined binaries—borderlines that question the existence of any nationhood.

The concept of the third space emerges from the ambiguity that arises from a dichotomy, where the dominant group strives to establish their identity by resisting cultural assimilation through finding a sense of self in the space that exists between the two cultural influences. To create meaning, it is necessary to activate these two locations during the exploration of a Third Space. This Third Space represents both the fundamental aspects of language and the consequences of the statement, approached in a way that is performative and institutional. This approach is unable to recognise the concept of “inherently” (Bhabha, The Location of Culture 52). In this Third Space, identities and customs from various cultures are always being discussed and redefined. The importance of ambivalence in the third space is emphasised by acknowledging that the arrangement of positions cannot be determined from the content of the statement, and that the context cannot be mimetically inferred from the content (55–6).

Through representation, Homi K. Bhabha suggests that people differentiate themselves from any kind of ideology, regardless of social, political, national, religious, lingual, or cultural aspects. Therefore, the third space serves as an anecdote to distinguish the subject from stereotypical perspectives, where the subject adapts to his roots and heritage by transcending cultural boundaries. According to Bhabha, people are themselves beyond national boundaries and binaries. Therefore, national culture cannot be a huge factor in defining subjectivity. However, language plays a crucial role in shaping subjectivity. Claude Lefort focuses on the ‘enigma of language’ which defines the internal or external factors of the subject rather than the self  (Lefort 214). He further concedes that the representative himself is the object of representation (Lefort 214). The subject matter here represents the cultural differences that modernity has encountered through language adaptation. The ‘inbetween space’, as defined by Bhabha , symbolises the weight of culture that the representative bears (38). According to Bhabha , the third space is “the process of the self-reflection mirror of (human) nature’, where it selectively shapes an individual’s identity through a process of hybridization” (38). It is an individual process that picks and chooses fragmented norms and standards from different cultures to shape an individual’s identity. What is important here is to keep the root of his identity untraceable so that it remains unquestionable. Fanon, however, suggests that the hybridization process is to mask and hide; Homi K. Bhabha suggests that it is the third space where the protagonist adjusts his doubling image to unmask himself and make himself visible. Bhabha characterises Jameson’s concept of the ‘third space’ as a form of postmodern politics in which the modernism achieved by the migrant self is perceived as a ‘generic disordance’ (Bhabha 217). Rather than solving the identity issue and the historical subjectivity, these representations themselves created a value or a demand in a late capitalistic society (Bhabha 217).

Bhabha suggests that the representations create a third space stemming from the non-synchronous temporariness of global and national cultures, which in turn creates cultural tension beyond national borderlines (Bhabha 218). Space creates the pressure of adjusting the protagonist’s roots to change self-identity. This space has nothing to do with the rising tensions of religious or cultural fundamentals or the totalizing effect, but rather stems from the borderlines of culture and nationality. What this space does is “continually, contingently, ‘open out’, remaking the boundaries and exposing the limits of any claim to a singular or autonomous sign of difference, be it class, gender, or race.” (Bhabha 219).

Works Cited:

Anthias, Floya, and Nira Yuval-Davis. Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour and Class and the Anti-Racist Struggle. Routledge, 2005. Google Scholar, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203992920/racialized-boundaries-floya-anthias-nira-yuval-davis.

Ashcroft, Bill, et al. Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies. Psychology Press, 1998.

Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikha\uı. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Google Scholar, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cblaBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=Bakhtin+the+Dialogic+Imagination&ots=5KlR6zsytC&sig=edb5Q9-OKhJcFe0IpRo6phJyTZg. Accessed 20 May 2024.

Bhabha, Homi K. Nation and Narration. Routledge, 2013. Google Scholar, https://books.google.com/books?hl=de&lr=&id=2jhLLd4F6BgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=nation+and+narration+bhabha&ots=t_D7KnUSTW&sig=6HU7tLrxeuZMP7XHae6GgfM9dtE.

—. The Location of Culture. routledge, 2012.

Bhattacharyya, Gargi. ‘Cultural Education in Britain: From the Newbolt Report to the National Curriculum’. Oxford Literary Review, vol. 13, no. 1, July 1991, pp. 4–19. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.3366/olr.1991.002.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. Gramercy Books, 1979.

Fanon, Frantz. The Negro and Psychopathology. na, 2004. Google Scholar, https://www.academia.edu/download/59483321/Literary_Theory_-_An_Anthology_Blackwell20190601-94544-fbkrbp.pdf#page=481.

Fay, Stephen, and Liam Haydon. An Analysis of Homi K. Bhabha’s The Location of Culture. CRC Press, 2017.

Freud, Sigmund. The Unconscious. Penguin Adult, 2005.

Gilroy, Paul. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Harvard University Press, 1993.

Hall, Stuart. Cultural Identity and Diaspora.

—. Familiar Stranger: A Life between Two Islands. Duke University Press, 2017. Google Scholar, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ovVyDgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=familiar+stranger+hall&ots=JLHsow17_R&sig=KDjeSwaw62kVGp1nS6eXhUGcWYo.

—. The Hard Road to Renewal: The Crisis of Thatcherism. London: Verso, 1988.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. ببلومانيا للنشر والتوزيع, 2024. Google Scholar, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OX33EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Hitler,+Mein+Kampf&ots=Zh6m3w1SRV&sig=GZ9c_42nW-T0BK19H1J3ML4oFN4.

Huxley, Thomas Henry. On Our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature. Robert Hardwicke, 1862. Google Scholar, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vo5hRZ7Tjj8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Huxley,+T.H.,+Six+Lectures+to+Working+Men+%E2%80%98On+Our+Knowledge+of+the+Causes+of+the+Phenomena+of+Organic+Nature+%E2%80%99+%5B1863%5D&ots=D1WVoGO2xR&sig=7heEVtFoxMMDFBS_eIxMeMIrC7w.

Hyam, Ronald. ‘Empire and Sexuality: The British Experience’. Empire and Sexuality, Manchester University Press, 2017. Google Scholar, https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526119520/9781526119520.xml?format=rss.

Lebron, Christopher. ‘Paul Gilroy, The Black Atlantic’. The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Contemporary Political Theory, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198717133.013.55.

Lefort, Claude. ‘The Political Forms of Modern Society (Cambridge’. Polity, vol. 299, 1986.

Nasta, Susheila. Home Truths: Fictions of the South Asian Diaspora in Britain. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.

Raghuram, Parvati, and Ajaya Kumar Sahoo. ‘Thinking ‘Indian Diaspora’for Our Times’. Tracing an Indian Diaspora, 2008, pp. 1–28.

Said, Edward W. ‘Orientalism’. The Georgia Review, vol. 31, no. 1, 1977, pp. 162–206.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ Imperialism, Routledge, 2023, pp. 171–219. Google Scholar, https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/chapters/edit/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781003101536-9&type=chapterpdf.

—. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. Routledge, 2012. Google Scholar, https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9780203441114&type=googlepdf.

Waitz, Theodor. Introduction to Anthropology. Anthropological Society, 1863. Google Scholar, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jnERAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Waitz,+Introduction+to+Anthropology&ots=nq92tDSIlh&sig=jcrOW4m75LZwb8NKyDvjYmI2Q64.

Young, Robert J. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. Annotated edition, 1994. Library Genesis, http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=8c23ae2af391fa38537ebbb931a4bd35.