Bhabha

This page contains student contributions of the course Comparing Cultures.

Zum Konzept der Hybridität bei Homi K. Bhabha

Essay by Carla W

Um Kulturen zu vergleichen ist eine Vorstellung dessen notwendig was "Kultur" ist und beschreibt. Die meisten dieser Theorien sind jedoch stark von Ethnozentrismus geprägt. Begibt man sich auf die Suche nach einem Kulturbegriff jenseits der längst nicht mehr zeitgemäß und eher statisch erscheinenden Kategorien wie Nationalkulturen oder stark belasteten Kulturbegriffen wie Rasse oder Geschlecht, stößt man auf Homi K. Bhabhas Konzept der Hybridität. Der indische Theoretiker des Postkolonialismus Bhabha bezieht sich in seiner Theorie vor allem auf das Verhältnis zwischen ehemals Kolonisierenden und Kolonialisierten.

Hybridität bedeutet, dass sich unterschiedliche Kulturen, die miteinander leben gegenseitig beeinflussen ohne jedoch miteinander zu verschmelzen. Das Besondere dabei ist, dass bei einer Betrachtung hybrider Kultur das Subjekt nicht auf eine ethnische Position festgelegt, sondern viel individueller betrachtet. Das ist sehr vorteilhaft bei der Beschreibung von Gesellschaften und Kulturen, deren Geschichte und Gegenwart stark von Migration oder einer Kolonialvergangenheit geprägt ist. Man muss nicht länger entweder Schwarz oder Weiß, Deutsche oder Türke sein. Dadurch ist es möglich, die Realität einer globalisierten Welt viel differenzierter abzubilden.

Wie Heidegger sieht Bhabha Kultur als etwas, das sich nicht innerhalb von Grenzen befindet, sondern als das, was hinter den Grenzen entsteht. Er beschreibt Kulturen, die "Dazwischen" sind und sich in einem "third-space", einen Raum, der zwischen zwei (oder mehreren) Kulturen entsteht, befinden, an dem sich die Diaspora aus kolonialisierten Ländern mit der schon länger ansässigen Bevölkerung mischt, ohne jedoch miteinander zu verschmelzen (Dietze, Seite 309). Es findet ein Austausch statt, der beide Kulturen prägt und etwas hybrides Neues entstehen lässt.

Das Konzept der Hybridität stellt dadurch die Reinheit und Ursprünglichkeit (westlicher) Kulturen in Frage und bringt damit auf eben diese Attribute gegründete Machtpositionen zwischen Kulturen ins Wanken. Kulturell begründete Hierarchien müssen überdacht und neu definiert werden.

Für die "Dritte Welt"/die kolonisierten Kulturen hat der Begriff auch eine entscheidende identitätsstiftende Bedeutung. Durch die Anerkennung der gegenseitigen Beeinflussung der Kulturen in der Geschichte wird erst die Geschichte der Kolonialisierten autorisiert und erhält eine Stimme. Identität zu entwickeln bedeutet für Bhabha auch, seine eigene Geschichte zu schreiben. So werden Kulturen nicht mehr nur aus der immer gleichen westlichen Perspektive verglichen, der immer etwas sehr wertendes innewohnt.

Betrachtet man die Entwicklungen in der Welt seit dem Ende der Kolonialisierung, fällt auf, wie dringend Begriffe, die zur Beschreibung kultureller Zusammenhänge gebraucht werden, neu definiert werden müssen.

Dies ist nicht einfach, da mit einem solchen Prozess auch die endgültige Aufgabe bestimmter Privilegien der Kolonialisierenden verbunden ist. Diejenigen, welche bisher Geschichte geschrieben und bestimmt haben für sich und andere müssen nun zulassen, dass ihnen diese Macht entzogen wird. Durch die Emanzipation der ehemals kolonisierten Menschen kann dieses Monopol der Geschichtsbestimmung nicht gehalten werden. Es kommen die Teile der Geschichte ans Licht, die verdeckt gehalten werden sollten. Die Bedeutung der Kolonialzeit nicht nur für die Kolonisierten, sondern auch für die ehemals Kolonisierenden Menschen tritt zu Tage und zeigt, dass die Kulturen durchaus gemeinsame Geschichte teilen.

Hybridität bedeutet genau diese gegenseitige Beeinflussung unterschiedlicher Kulturen. Bei diesem Konzept werden Identitäten als zusammengesetzte Gebilde verstanden, die losgelöst sind von Polen wie etwa Schwarz und Weiß und einen Gegensatz zum kulturellen Existenzialismus bilden.

Möchte man etwas komplexes und vielschichtiges wie Kultur vergleichen, so muss man laut der meisten Theorien entweder stark Vereinfachen oder verirrt sich in empirischen Details. Bhabhas Theorie könnte ein Schritt in eine ganz andere Richtung sein, in der man Vergleichen kann ohne jedes Individuum in eine kulturelle Schublade zu stecken und diese bis zur Unkenntlichkeit zu vereinfachen. Sieht man Kultur als das, was auffällt wenn man Differenzen zwischen Kulturen vergleicht, so werden gleichzeitig die Gemeinsamkeiten die Kulturen teilen deutlich. Dieser Weg scheint viel konstruktiver, als von vorneherein alles an Kulturen als unterschiedlich zu vermuten.

Das Unterschiede etwas positives sein können und nicht zwangsläufig zu Konflikten oder "Kulturkämpfen" führen (siehe Huntingtons Clash of Culture) ist ein interessanter Gedanke, der einem friedlichen Zusammenleben nur förderlich sein kann. Bhabha spricht in diesem Zusammenhang von einem Gefühl der "Unheimlichkeit", das einen beschleicht wann immer man in seinem gewohnten Umfeld von Ungewohntem irritiert wird (Seite 13ff, Bhabha, 2000). Die Kunst besteht dann darin sich das Neue zu erschließen und in der "Unheimlichkeit" wieder "Heimlich" zu werden. Diese Fähigkeit ist eine der essentiellsten in einer sich schnell entwickelnden und vernetzenden Welt. Sie unterstützt nicht nur das gegenseitige Verständnis zwischen Kulturen, sondern eben auch die Akzeptanz von Homi K. Bhabhas "Dazwischen"-Kulturen. Die Fähigkeit sich schnell "Heimlich" zu fühlen verhindert, dass aus einem leichten Misstrauen Neuem gegenüber eine ausgewachsene Angst oder Feindschaft wird.

Hybridität ist ein Ansatz der Kulturbetrachtung, der auf Verständnis und Gleichberechtigung setzt und die eigene Position in die Beobachtung einschließt. Und erst durch das Bewusstsein der Subjektivität der eigenen Forschungsperspektive ist es vielleicht möglich, etwas objektiver zu betrachten.

Quellen

• Homi K. Bhabha "Die Verortung der Kultur", Stauffenberg Verlag, 2000
• Solveig Mill "Transdifferenz und Hybridität- Überlegungen zur Abgrenzung zweier Konzepte" aus "Differenzen anders Denken", Campus Verlag 2005
• Gaby Dietze "Postcolonial Theory" aus "Gender@Wissen", Böhlau Verlag, 2005

The theory of hybridity – the theory of culture

Essay by Laura B

Especially in the 19th and 20th century hybrid identities were accused to contaminate national pureness. Hybrids were seen as a danger for the natural differences of human races. A look into the history book and this social understanding of national pureness can be fixed in several cultural areas: For example the time of National Socialism in Germany or the authority of the Europeans domineering over the Aborigines in Australia. The reproduction between the cultural races was prohibited in order to kill the inferior cultural minority in the particular territory. The term hybrid descends from sciences and describes a cross between different species of plants or animals, which provides a new species. Transferred to the cultural context this “new species” sets an end to exact cultural definition. Not only in the past hybridisation provides a fear of losing the cultural identity and changes the common understanding of culture.

In these days the term hybrid is a fixed expression describing human beings with a multicultural identity and self- understanding. It calls a cultural phenomenon of globalisation and pluralistic society. For example people with a migration background are counted to this cultural phenomenon as they are members of two or three nationalities and share several cultural knowledge. Homi K. Bhaba understands hybridisation as the fundament of modern society: That is the central idea of his book “The location of culture”. The author notices an emergence of new cultural forms from the period of multiculturalism. Bhaba’s work exploits and engenders moments of ambivalence that structures social authority. The Indian professor demands to rethink the question of identity, social classification and national affiliation. Therefore he provides the theory of hybridity.

In the following I explain the argument of Homi K. Bhaba and afterwards I discuss his thesis and think this theory further. The author argues that since the time of colonialism - the time of transformation between the western civilisation and foreign societies- human subjects cannot be reduced on ethnic positions or homogenous concepts of identity. In fact cultural interaction and exchange provides interspaces, in which people create their identity in individual way. Between fixed cultural identification the interspaces are growing and providing a fluently undefined area. And the modern human being moves in those interspaces. In his book Bhaba mentions the exhibition “Sites of Genealogy” of the artist Renée Greens, who uses the stairs of a museum as a metaphor for interspaces.

I think this is a good image for understanding the theory of hybridity: The different floors are the cultural identification pols and the stairs are the link in between. People move in this undefined space and do not belong to a level and do not stay on one certain floor. Moreover they cannot leave their floor without encountering with another culture.

Furthermore I explain this theory with a historical fact and my personal experience with the phenomenon of hybridity in the South of India: Since the time of British colonialism Indians especially in the South of India live in a hybrid culture, they move at the stairs. On the one floor there is the traditional Indian culture like wearing the suit of Sari or being Hinduism but on the other hand the heritage of British culture, the European standard, influences the original Indian tradition: For example English replaces Hindi as the main language and drinking tea in the afternoon is a British habit. Therefor the Indians daily realize a hybrid culture mixed by British and traditional Indian elements.

In summary Bhaba’s argument emphasizes that communication and interaction between the single cultures provides interspaces we should be aware of. This phenomenon is a fixed element of the modern world of globalisation.

In my essay about the theory of hybridity I would like to take the thought of the author and to continue thinking. I have to mention that my considerations concern the European culture as I am not able to judge over the cultural consciousness of people living in the non-western parts of world.

First of all, I do not agree with declaring the time of colonialism as the origin of hybridisation. I think communication and interaction between subjects are the basic elements of hybridisation and therefore the phenomenon has accompanied the complete human evolution. There is no cultural pureness neither than a national or religious one: every individual contacts and interacts with other persons, therefore its cultural identity is formed in a personal way and is not able to be reduced on a stereotyped term of culture. The historical period of colonialism or imperialism is the time western civilization got into contact with cultures far away and the people mixed the impressions with the familiar habits.

But I think there has never been a pure culture before. Every human is an eclectic choosing and forming the values and habits in its personal social life. So there is no defined homogenous western or Indian culture, both are hybrid cultures as they contain subcultures and interspaces. I argument human beings stay in between the identification pols, at the stairs. The consequence of expanding the theory of hybridisation over the whole period of human being is to fix every individual as a hybrid joining several cultural areas, living in several in-between spaces and sharing different cultural knowledge.

As explanation for my statement I give a simple explanation: Me and my mother are both “full-blood” German, but we do not share exactly the same space of knowledge and do not belong to the same subcultures. Therefore I have another consciousness of self-awareness and corporality than my mother or my mum has different culture of communication than I. Accordingly we both are defined by the cultural stereotyped term of “German” but in fact we form our personality in different subcultural spaces. We share cultural similarities like the language but we have differences, too.

Therefore the “umbrella term” – the stereotyped and national assignments do not identify a person and its cultural belonging. There is no “German” as the concerned group of people living in the territorial area is a multicultural nation and the German culture is like every culture a hybrid one. It is formed by a big space of subcultures and every individual compose its personal culture by choosing certain subcultures. “German” does only constitute the place where a person lives but not the place where a person exists. The term “German” is only the umbrella covering different personalities and characters.

In the 21th century, the floral time of globalisation, the participations of the worldwide web, the passengers of the worldwide flight network or the audience of the daily news from all over the world notice the growing cultural hybridisation in their personal life. People experience cultural differences and notice similarities like never before. They transfer foreign cultural elements in their space of knowledge and feel the divergence of hybridity. But it is fatal as only the obvious cultural areas like the national or religious ones are noticed as cultural phenomena. In fact those “umbrella cultural terms” are constituted by subcultures and are hybrids. Therefore the theory of hybridity is not a modern phenomenon. The stereotyped terms describe only the obvious difference and do not pay attention to the hybridity of subcultures in each culture. Therefore using stereotype terms may helpful for communication and orientation in the complexity of the modern world but these cultural definitions are charged with fixed features and pictures of the people beyond: They deny the individuality and hybridity.

However, I have to admit that abandoning stereotyped terms and cultural identification pols causes a complex theoretical issue I cannot deal with. Without describing things, persons and situations with words and terms people are not able to communicate and to orientate. No social life would be able to exist and therefore no human being would be able to exist. But using terms in order to describe features or looks provides stereotypes and does not allow person to exist in an individual way and to be a cultural hybrid. To solve this problem I think it necessary to be aware of the stereotyping function of cultural terms. People should have a look beyond the words and prejudices in order to get to know the multicultural person beyond. This is important as in these days the cultural offer is open and accessible like never before and hybridity is a common phenomenon.

Homi K. Bhaba The Location of Culture

Essay by Teuta C

I have attended a seminar on Post-­‐colonialism during my last stay in Berlin, in February 2013. This seminar was embedded into a post-­‐colonial sightseeing walk, hold by Kwesi Aikins who is one of the founders of “Berlin Postkolonial“. This NGO has the aim to show the current postcolonial influence in public space. Since this seminar I was even more interested in postcolonial theory. It was one of the reasons why I chose to attend the seminar “comparing cultures“. I have enjoyed reading the introduction of Bhaba’s collection of essays that were published under the title “The Location of culture“ in 1994. Unfortunately we have read Bhaba’s words in German and not in English. Nevertheless it was a great joy to read his critical thoughts. Various homepages state that he “is one of the most important figures in contemporary post-­‐colonial studies”. One of my professors has pronounced criticism during class that “Bhaba is part of the American mainstream”. Nowadays Bhaba indeed does teach in Harvard, USA. Nevertheless he grew up as a Parsi in Mumbai, India. This means that he was not civilized in the American-­‐western way since birth. I do not share my professor’s position. From my point of view Bhaba’s understanding on culture sticks out in comparison to the positions we have investigated in class. Furthermore I am convinced that “comparing cultures” may only be successful by keeping post-­‐colonial theory in mind. The English version of the preface of “The Location of Culture” states at the beginning: “Homi Bhaba sets out the conceptual imperative and the political consistency of a postcolonial project. In a dazzling series of interdisciplinary essays he explains why the culture of Western modernity must be relocated from a postcolonial perspective”. Bhaba’s introduction to his essays is called: “Border lives: The art of the present”. The title already implies Bhaba’s focus on “borders” and “the present”. From Bhaba’s point of view “our existence of today is marked by a tenebrous sense of survival, living on the borderlines of the 'present'“. Furthermore “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.” Bhaba underlines that our presence is marked by a sense of disorientation. I would go further. I would underline that our time is marked by fear of crossing borders and going beyond of the concepts accepted and promoted by western society. For Bhaba ‘beyond' signifies spatial distance, ‘beyond’ marks progress and ‘beyond’ promises the future. But what does it actually imply “to go beyond”? The very act of going beyond means to turn one’s back to the “present”. Race, generation, institutional location, geopolitical locale and sexual orientation are nowadays very important for the individual identity and the “awareness of the subject position” in the modern, western-­‐civilized world. Going beyond these categories and neglecting them would mean to create a space “in-­‐between”. Bhaba coins the concept of the “third space”. This third space is located on the boundaries of in-­‐between forms of difference and “overlaps the spheres of class, gender, race, nation, generation, location”. Bhaba claims that in this third space most creative forms of cultural identity are produced. “These 'in-­‐between' spaces provide the terrain for elaborating strategies of selfhood -­‐ singular or communal -­‐ that initiate new signs of identity, and innovative sites of collaboration, and contestation, in the act of defining the idea of society itself.” These in-­‐ between spaces signify progress for the individual and the society at the same time. Bhaba is convinced that “political empowerment and the encouragement of the multicultural society come from posing questions of solidarity and community from the interstitial perspective”. The public sphere is encouraged and strengthened by the third space because it promotes pure solidarity between individuals. Furthermore the third space implies the overcoming of our disorientation and our fear. Applying this concept to reality would mean to negotiate community interest and cultural value within a society over and over again. This process would be a current. Nevertheless I ask myself as Bhaba already did: “How are subjects formed 'in-­‐between', or in excess of, the sum of the I parts' of difference?’’ From my point of view Bhaba’s answer is not satisfying. He gives a couple of examples showing how people have already entered the third sphere. But a proper definition of the process is missing. Even though there are a lot of individuals who have already discovered the advantages of the “third space”, there exists a majority that needs categorization. In my point of view this majority chooses consciously the creation of borders for the sake of personal identity and the personal ego. Bhaba begins his introduction with Heidegger’s quote: “A boundary is not that at which something stops but, as the Greeks recognized, the boundary is that from which something begins its presence.” I do share Heidegger’s opinion as Bhaba does. At the same time boundaries give security and stability. A person can hide itself behind a boundary as if it was a wall. An individual can shelter itself from the rest of the world that often seems insecure and dangerous. To renounce boundaries means to renounce security and comfort. To renounce boundaries means to be courageous and to overcome personal fear of the unknown. Furthermore I do realize that for most people the concept of the “third place” is too abstract. Many cannot identify the advantages of this new concept of solidarity. Unfortunately our western-­‐civilized society promotes in the whole world the advantages of being individualistic and a lone warrior. Most individuals seek to stick out, to be unique. Therefore they use categorization for establishing borders between themselves-­‐ the “I”-­‐ and the rest. Giving these categorizations up would mean to overcome ones ego. From my point of view Bhaba is a revolutionist. He is far ahead of our time. He is right when he states that his idea “represents a radical revision in the concept of human community itself”. Nevertheless I am sure that change needs time. Bhaba himself states that community is a project that is vision and construction at the same time. Usually the vision is far ahead of its implementation. Bhaba as a pioneer has already overcome the disorientation. He has “gone beyond” and has entered the “third space”. I am sure that many of us will identify the advantages and will follow.