8/13/2019 Bhabha Guide

1/5

Reading Guide to Homi Bhabha: The Other Question: Stereotype,Discrimination and the Discourse of o!onia!ism"

Stereotyping is an acti#ity that happens through the use of !anguage, more precise!y through

the construction of signs$ Stereotyping is thus a semiotic acti#ity$ %hi!e Homi Bhabha is&riting from the #ie&point of postco!onia! studies, &hich usua!!y dea!s &ith such p!aces as'ndia or (frica )p!aces that used to be co!onies and ha#e no& become post*co!onia!"+, &hatBhabha says is a!so app!icab!e in a more genera! sense about modern societies that, despiteincreasing indi#idua!i ation, try to maintain order by defining certain groups as the other$"-ore specifica!!y, ideas de#e!oped in postco!onia! studies can be usefu! to ana!y e ear!y(merican cu!ture, for instance that of the .uritans, &hich, as &e ha#e discussed in c!ass,re!ied on a c!ear separation of the .uritan se!f" and the sa#age other$"

The starting point of Bhabha/s artic!e The Other Question: Stereotype, discrimination andthe discourse of co!onia!ism" is the assumption that the stereotype is an ideo!ogica! operation$

Thus, the stereotype constructs a group or indi#idua!s as the other$" Ho&e#er,this otherness is produced through a parado0ica! strategy$ On the one hand, the person orgroup that is the #ictim of stereotypi ation is said to be essentially or onto!ogica!!y other,"&ithout admitting the possibi!ity of change or differentiation$ This is &hat Bhabha means&hen he says that the stereotype proc!aims unchanging order and rigidity$ (t the same time,ho&e#er, the construction of the other as something c!ear!y identifiab!e must a!&ays berepeated )this is &hat ma1es the stereotype a c!ich2: that the same things are said about certain

peop!e o#er and o#er again$ 3or instance, the stereotypes of the 4e& ha#e been repeated o#erand o#er for centuries, e#en though the historica! conste!!ations in &hich 4e&s participated indifferent societies #aried great!y+$ The prob!em is that this repetition not on!y ensures that

peop!e percei#e the stereotyped group or indi#idua! in a certain &ay$ Repetition a!so 5uestions

this #ery fi0ity that repetition sets out to guarantee$ This is because repetition imp!ies that&hat the stereotypica! construction of the other c!aims cannot be pro#en once and for a!!$'nstead, it must be repeated o#er and o#er again$

This parado0ica! situation is the first aspect of &hat Bhabha refers to as ambi#a!ence$ %hatBhabha in aiming at is a redefinition of the &ho!e prob!em of the stereotype$ %hereas for athe most part of critica! studies peop!e &ere concerned &ith &hether a particu!ar stereotype&as positi#e" of negati#e" )in other &ords, &hether the representation of groups !i1e b!ac1sin mo#ies and other te0ts &as racist or &hether it &as an accurate description of rea!

b!ac1s"+, Bhabha is interested to sho& ho& the stereotype is basic to the process by &hichindi#idua!s succumb to the ru!es of society )i$e$, ho& the stereotype is in#o!#ed in theprocess of sub6ecti#ation"+$ To Bhabha, not on!y the one &ho is stereotyped in discourse isaffected by the stereotype but a!so the one &ho ma1es use of the stereotype$ The po!itica!imp!ication of this #ie& is that the c!ear demarcation of oppressor and oppressed is5uestioned$

%e can no& !oo1 at the meaning of ambi#a!ence in greater detai!$ Bhabha spea1s of productive ambi#a!ence$" %hat is it that is produced7 3irst, in trying to define the other)&hich is the function of the stereotype+, it is necessary to articu!ate difference, for instance inracia! and se0ua! terms$ 8ot e#eryone is the same," is &hat this discourse &ants to ma1ec!ear$ B!ac1s are sa#age brutes," is one of these differences that are produced by discourse$'n other &ords, through the discursi#e production of differences, the other" is constructed$ 'tis &hat is said about the other that is defines the other$

9

8/13/2019 Bhabha Guide

2/5

'n this respect, co!onia! discourse appears to be not ambi#a!ent at a!!$ 't is a discourse thataims to estab!ish cu!tura! and racia! hierarchy, and this is achie#ed through the articu!ationand organi ation of #arious differences$ o!onia! discourse produces the co!oni ed as a socia!rea!ity, and it seems to &or1 #ery smooth!y$

(mbi#a!ence enters the game &hen Bhabha c!aims that this discourse depends on therecognition and disavowal of racia! cu!tura! historica! differences$ The co!oni ed are on theone hand constructed as the other; )the other, as &e ha#e seen in -ary Doug!as/ te0t, re!atesto that &hich defies our categories+; on the other hand, the co!oni ed is something that is

produced through the discourse of the co!oni er &ith the aim of contro!!ing the other$ 'n thissense, the co!oni ed )the other+ is entire!y 1no&ab!e and #isib!e" )

8/13/2019 Bhabha Guide

3/5

To understand this, &e need to e0p!ore 3reud/s definition of the fetish )cf$ be!o&, note on3etish+$ 3reud argues that the rea!i ation of the !itt!e boy that the mother does not ha#e a penisimp!ies for the boy that his o&n penis might be in danger$ This is meant by anxiety ofcastration $ To manage that an0iety, the boy disavows the mother not ha#ing a penis$ He is, inother &ords, disa#o&ing difference, name!y, se0ua! difference$ This disa#o&a! is

contradictory itse!f: The boy, according to 3reud, retains the be!ief that the mother has a penis&hi!e at the same time accepting that she does not$ (s a compromise, he creates a fetishob6ect that ta1es the p!ace of the mother/s penis$

%e can no& see in a c!earer !ight ho& this re!ates to the stereotype$ The person or group thatis the target of the stereotype and the one &ho is ma1ing use of the stereotype )i$e$, bothco!oni er and co!oni ed+ are said to be essentially or onto!ogica!!y coherent, &ithoutadmitting the possibi!ity of change or differentiation$ But this coherence is nothing but afantasy of &ho!eness$ This becomes understandab!e through an ana!ogy to the situation ofinfants$ 3or the infant, any sort of sp!it or difference fee!s !i1e a catastrophe because it meansthat he is separated from his mother$ The fantasy of coherence thus goes bac1 to the infanti!e&hish of being and remaining one &ith the mother$ Bhabha sometimes refers to this fantasy ofcoherence as the 'maginary" )cf$ note on 'mginary"+, thereby using the concept of 3rench

psychoana!ytic 4ac5ues Cacan$ To put the &ho!e matter in a nutshe!!: 't is discourse that firstsets up the differentiation bet&een, e$g$, b!ac1" and &hite$" But it is a!so because of!anguage that this differentiation remains unstab!e )see the semiotic argument abo#e+$ -ore

precise!y, in Cacan/s theory it is the entry into !anguage )he refers to it as the Symbo!icorder"+ that forbids the union &ith the mother$ %e can e5uate this entry into !anguage &iththe moment that 3reud describes &hen the !itt!e boy sees that his mother does not ha#e a

penis$ Both moments are about difference$ Canguage &or1s through differences, and the boyis confronted &ith se0ua! difference$ To bring this bac1 to the stereotype, this is the moment&hen one rea!i es that the coherence of the stereotype is pure!y imaginary, that &ithin thecategory of b!ac1s, to stic1 to that e0amp!e, there is difference$

(s in the scene of fetishism, this difference needs to be disa#o&ed &hi!e at the same time itneeds to be accepted$ This is &here the fetish ob6ect comes in$ 3or 3reud, any ob6ect &astheoretica!!y capab!e of rep!acing the penis$ 3or Bhabha, a c!ear!y #isib!e part of the other)!i1e the s1in+ is used to become a fetish$ This fetish no& ma1es it possib!e to accept that thereis difference among b!ac1s as the other" and, at !east as important!y, that there is differenceamong the &hite co!oni ed se!#es )e#en each indi#idua! se!f turns out to be incoherent+, &hi!esimu!taneous!y be!ie#ing that there is unity, coherence etc$ on both sides$ %hat is fetishi ed isa!&ays !o#ed and despised, hence the strange ambi#a!ence of desire and derision$ (nd

because Bhabha points out that both co!oni er and co!oni ed are affected by the stereotypeas fetish," the psychoana!ytica! ana!ogy gains re!e#ance$ %hate#er is said about the identity ofthe other ref!ects the identity of the se!f$ Thus, constructing the other" in a stereotypica! &ayhas the function of creating the fantasy of a coherent identity of the co!oni er/s se!f, anidentity that is seeming!y a!&ays in contro! and at the same time pro#es not to be in contro!at a!!$

%e ha#e no& reached the fina! step of Bhabha/s argument$ 'n his opinion, in the stereotypethe mu!tip!e be!ief structure of fetishism )' be!ie#e that the mother has no penis but ' a!so donot be!ie#e it"+ is actua!!y embraced and made use of$ Bhabha summari es the ambi#a!encearticu!ated in stereotypica! discourse: The b!ac1 is both sa#age )canniba!+ and yet the most

obedient and dignified of ser#ants )the bearer of food+; he is the embodiment of rampantse0ua!ity and yet innocent as a chi!d; he is mystica!, primiti#e, simp!e*minded and yet the

E

8/13/2019 Bhabha Guide

4/5

most &or!d!y and accomp!ished !iar, and manipu!ator of socia! forces$ 'n each case, &hat is being dramati ed is a separation@" )? +$

Bhabha/s e#a!uation of stereotypica! discourse thus ends up on an ambi#a!ent note itse!f$ Onthe one hand, stereotypica! discourse is a means of &ie!ding po&er$ On the other hand, it turns

out that this discourse a!!o&s for the e0pression of t&o be!iefs at once$ 't goes beyond themisrecognition that is ta1ing p!ace in Cacan/s imaginary )cf$ note on imaginary+ in that here1no&!edge emerges as non*repressi#e" one is a!most tempted to thin1 that Bhabha meansnon*oppressi#e" here$ The fact that Bhabha is re*enacting the ambi#a!ence that he is &ritingabout can be attributed to a fashionab!e )though often disconcerting+ trend in cu!tura! criticism&hereby &hat is &ritten is ref!ected in ho& it is &ritten$

disavowal : Bhabha is using the term in a psychoana!ytica! sense )3reud introduced it asVerleugnung +$ f$ the entry in 4$ Cap!anche 4$*B$ .onta!is: Das Vokabular der Psychoanalyse :Verleugung : Fon 3reud in einem spe ifischen Sinne #er&endeter (usdruc1: (b&ehrform,die in einer %eigerung des Sub6e1ts besteht, die Rea!it t einer traumatisierenden%ahrnehmung an uer1ennen, insbesondere die .enis!osig1eit der 3rau$ Dieser -echanismus&ird #on 3reud besonders da u angef hrt, um den 3etischismus und die .sychosen uer1! ren" )I>I+$

regime of truth : ( term introduced by the 3rench phi!osopher -iche! 3oucau!t )9> J*?K+$ Hisidea &as that po&er is e0erted through the process in &hich things are defined to be true$Lno&!edge in this sense is an instrument of po&er$ Lno&!edge not on!y means that you 1no&things about things that e0ist$ -ore important!y, it means that those things on!y come intoe0istence through the fact that peop!e define them in certain &ays$ 3or instance, psycho!ogy isnot on!y about ana!y ing peop!e$ 't a!so created )in the sense of defined"+ certainabnorma!ities, !i1e hysteria, in grouping together a number of beha#ior patterns that did notnecessari!y be!ong together as one disease$ Thus, on!y by gi#ing a name to something thissomething comes into e0istence$ Lno&!edge produces truth and both 1no&!edge and truth aremeans of discursi#e po&er$

fetishism : 3reud defines fetishism as fo!!o&s: Mm es 1!arer u sagen, der 3etisch ist der=rsat f r den .ha!!us des %eibes )der -utter+, an den das Ln b!ein geg!aubt hatte und aufden es &ir &issen &arum nicht #er ichten &i!!$ Der Hergang &ar a!so der, dass der Lnabesich ge&eigert hat, die Tatsache seiner %ahrnehmung, dass das %eib 1einen .enis besit t,ur Lenntnis u nehmen$ 8ein, das 1ann nicht &ahr sein, denn &enn das %eib 1astriert ist, ist

sein eigener .enisbesit bedroht@ =s ist nicht richtig, dass das Lind sich nach seinerBeobachtung am %eibe den G!auben an den .ha!!us des %eibes un#er ndert gerettet hat$ =shat ihn be&ahrt, aber auch aufgegeben; im Lonf!i1t &ischen dem Ge&icht deruner& nschten %ahrnehmnung und der St r1e des Gegen&unsches ist es u einemLompromiss ge1ommen@ 4a, das %eib hat im .sychischen dennoch einen .enis, aber dieser.enis ist nicht mehr dasse!be, das er fr her &ar$ =t&as anderes ist an seine Ste!!e getreten, istso usagen u seinem =rsat ernannt &orden und ist nun der =rbe des 'nteresses, das sich demfr heren uge&endet hatte )3reud, Sigmund: Gesamme!te %er1e, Band N'F, E9 *E9E+$

Imaginary and Mirror Stage : (ccording to the theory of 3rench psychoana!yst 4ac5ues Cacan,there are three different orders that structure our !ife$ .ertinent for our discussion are the

'maginary" and the Symbo!ic$" The Symbo!ic is the order in &hich indi#idua!s ha#e become part of society, basica!!y by entering !anguage$ Before that, they are part of the 'maginary$"They imagine" that the &or!d is one big entity, that they, in fact, are the &or!d$ The borders

K

8/13/2019 Bhabha Guide

5/5

bet&een se!f and other ha#e not yet been dra&n$ They imagine they are one &ith their motherand, since they cannot conceptua!i e difference bet&een themse!#es and others, they fee! theyare in contro!$ Cacan uses the 'maginary" in t&o senses, first in the sense of to imagine,"second as the order of the image" )#s$ the order of !anguage, name!y the Symbo!ic+$ Hema1es the concept of the 'maginary c!ear in his ana!ysis of the -irror Stage$" 'n his artic!e

The -irror Stage" he describes &hat happens &hen infants for the first time !oo1 into amirror and recogni e themse!#es$ The image in the mirror produces a cheerfu! fee!ing in theinfant$ 3or the first time, he sees himse!f as an indi#idua! human being$ He fee!s in contro!$ Hesees an image of himse!f and thereby rea!i es that his body possesses a distinct shape$ 'n thissense, the mirror stage mar1s a change in the de#e!opment of the human begin he begins tonegotiate the borders of himse!f$ Ho&e#er, the mirror stage is mar1ed by the sameambi#a!ence that Bhabha ta!1s about$ The fee!ing of po&er is fo!!o&ed by frustration in themoment that the infant rea!i es that &hi!e he sees himse!f in the mirror, he is sti!! dependenton an e!der &ho ho!ds him so he can actua!!y see the mirror image )the imp!ication being thatthe infant at that point can/t stand up by himse!f+$ Thus the image in the mirror not on!yenab!es a fee!ing of mastery, but simu!taneous!y a fee!ing of he!p!essness and dependency$%hen Bhabha ta!1s about the necessary visibility of the fetish, he has in mind the mirror image ofCacan/s mirror stage, because it is the function of the fetish to in#o1e a fee!ing of coherence andmastery &hi!e at the same time hinting at the opposite$

I