Summary: Bhabha, The Location of Culture, “The Other Question”
Editor’s Note: For this assignment, I needed to read and summarize the published piece or content listed below, and then provide a response or assessment of the writing.
Summary
Bhabha discusses the stereotype and its role within colonial discourse. Bhabha believes colonial discourse depends on the concept of fixity, where the colonized people are defined and this definition is rigid and unchanging. That definition is repeated often to ensure the definition lives on because it cannot be fully proven if examined. Bhabha’s goal in this essay is to examine fixity and stereotypes, rather than debate whether stereotypes are positive or negative. Bhabha states that the ambivalence of stereotypes includes simultaneous recognition of and disavowal of the colonized people, which occurs when the colonizers recognize certain attributes of the colonized and disavow, or ignore, other attributes of the colonized. This process is utilized to construct a regime of truth and a hierarchy of power between the colonizer and colonized. Bhabha references Freud’s fetishism as basis for the development of stereotypes, constructed of both anxieties and pleasures. He also references Lacan’s Imaginary and notes that stereotypes contain a lack of coherence that threatens their longevity, which is why repetition is required to continue to give stereotypes life. Bhabha concludes by stating that stereotypes are ambivalent and contain multiple beliefs, all of which result in promoting racist discourse.
Response
I thought Bhabha’s chapter was complex, but interesting nonetheless. The entire premise of discussing how and why stereotypes are developed, rather than whether stereotypes are positive or negative was intriguing. Although I’ve previously put some thought into the subject, my analysis of stereotypes was extremely basic. I never considered Bhabha’s ideas or even some form of his ideas. That being said, what I found most interesting about Bhabha’s work was the idea of ambivalence and disavowal.
Bhabha’s overall idea of ambivalence within stereotypes was somewhat complex, but one that seemed to make sense after reading through all of his examples and details—well, it made sense, and it didn’t make sense. There seemed to be a major contradiction in his statements about ambivalence. Perhaps he did that on purpose. Then again, perhaps I’m missing something here. To my understanding, Bhabha basically seemed to say that stereotypes, although most people think they’re very strong and influential, are actually very weak and easily broken if people take a second to examine them and their flaws. He also made the claim that the repetition of stereotypes threatens their existence. I didn’t totally understand his statement that repetition of stereotypes is actually threatening them though because he also stated that repetition is what keeps them alive. I understand that he’s saying stereotypes are weak because they’re developed by people or colonizers who pick and choose which attributes of other groups of people or the colonized to highlight or stereotype, and as such, those stereotypes are unable to be proven. However, because those stereotypes are unable to be proven, repetition of said stereotypes, coupled with no one investigating the source or truth behind the stereotypes, is precisely what keeps them alive. Those statements seemed both true and completely contradictory: they made sense when read separately, but together, they seemed contradictory and confusing.
The other aspect of Bhabha’s chapter that I thought was interesting was the disavowal aspect of ambivalence. I may not have interpreted the disavowal portion entirely correctly, but what I took away from it was the idea that colonizers have the opportunity to get to know a colonized population, but they choose not to get to know them. This refusal to fully understand the colonized allows the colonizers to construct stereotypes based on the attributes of the colonized that the colonizers view as weak or substandard or generally less than ideal. These stereotypes are then imparted onto the colonized in a sort of brainwashing. Those stereotypes also place the colonized lower in the class hierarchy and more easily controllable. For colonizing powers, this seems to be a key part of successfully taking over a foreign land. Quickly spotting weaknesses in a colonized population, exploiting those weaknesses, and then perpetuating the new stereotypes of those colonized to other populations around the world (in a similar contrasting model as Said’s Orientalism) appears to make continued ruling of a colonized area much more efficient.