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!"+, &hat Bhabha says is a!so app!icab!e in a more genera! sense about modern societies that, despite increasing 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 and the 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 or group 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 be repeated )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#er and o#er for centuries, e#en though the historica! conste!!ations in &hich 4e&s participated in different 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$ %hat Bhabha in aiming at is a redefinition of the &ho!e prob!em of the stereotype$ %hereas for a the 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!ac1s in 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 &hich indi#idua!s succumb to the ru!es of society )i$e$, ho& the stereotype is in#o!#ed in the process of sub6ecti#ation"+$ To Bhabha, not on!y the one &ho is stereotyped in discourse is affected 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 is 5uestioned$ %e can no& !oo1 at the meaning of ambi#a!ence in greater detai!$ Bhabha spea1s of productive ambi#a!ence$" %hat is it that is produced7 3irst, in trying to define the other )&hich is the function of the stereotype+, it is necessary to articu!ate difference, for instance in racia! and se0ua! terms$ 8ot e#eryone is the same," is &hat this discourse &ants to ma1e c!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$ 't is &hat is said about the other that is defines the other$

'n this respect, co!onia! discourse appears to be not ambi#a!ent at a!!$ 't is a discourse that aims to estab!ish cu!tura! and racia! hierarchy, and this is achie#ed through the articu!ation and 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 the recognition and disavowal of racia!:cu!tura!:historica! differences$ The co!oni,ed are on the one hand constructed as the other; )the other, as &e ha#e seen in -ary Doug!as/ te0t, re!ates to 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 this sense, the co!oni,ed )the other+ is entire!y 1no&ab!e and #isib!e" )<9+, &hich means that a fundamenta! difference of the other is disa#o&ed )cf$ entry on disavowal+$ The imp!ication of Bhabha/s argument is that you can ne#er fu!!y 1no&" another person, !et a!one a &ho!e peop!e; there is a!&ays something that e0ceeds &hat you thin1 the other is or ho& you construe the other$ This e0cess is &hat is denied in disa#o&a!$ Bhabha uses the term regime of truth" )cf$ note on regime of truth"+ to suggest that the co!oni,er intends to contro! the co!oni,ed through finding out e#erything about him and at the same time using that 1no&!edge to define the co!oni,ed in a certain &ay$ He !in1s this idea to &hat =d&ard Said has ca!!ed Orientalism in his groundbrea1ing boo1 of the same tit!e )9><?+$ Orienta!ist po&er is a strategy &hereby &hate#er is 1no&n about the co!oni,ed by the co!oni,er is used to construct an identity of the co!oni,ed in a supposed!y coherent &ay$ Thus =uropean discourses @ constitute Athe Orient/ as a unified racia!, geographica!, po!itica! and cu!tura! ,one of the &or!d" )<9+$ %hi!e genera!!y agreeing &ith Said/s &or1 on Orienta!ism, Bhabha ta1es issue &ith se#era! aspects of Said/s theory$ 3irst, it is impossib!e to specifica!!y point to the source of po&er that constructs the co!oni,ed in such a coherent &ay$ %hat can be agreed upon is that it is the co!oni,er &ho is in that po&er position but the historica! starting point of the discourse that the co!oni,er ma1es use of to construct the other is unc!ear$ This is because in this discourse many aspects come together )e$g$ race and gender+ and form an intricate &eb$ Second, not on!y the co!oni,ed is defined in a specific &ay through co!onia! discourse but the co!oni,er as &e!!$ 'f discourse fi0es peop!e/s identities, this goes for e#eryone &ho is in#o!#ed in it: those &ho spea1 )the co!oni,er+ and those &ho are spo1en about )the co!oni,ed+$ But it is on!y Bhabha/s ne0t step that fu!!y e0p!ores the impact of ambi#a!ence$" =mp!oying an argument that mi0es psychoana!ytica! &ith semiotic aspects )a #ery typica! strategy among poststructura!ist and post*co!onia!ist thin1ers+, Bhabha aims to sho& that the discourse that constructs se!f and other does, in fact, not &or1 smooth!y at a!!$ He a!ready hinted at this in the beginning of the essay &hen he said that repetition actua!!y endangered the stereotype because it sho&s that &hat the stereotype c!aims cannot be pro#en and instead must be repeated$ %e can !oo1 at this is semiotic terms$ The stereotype as sign )the signifier &ou!d be, for instance, b!ac1," and the signified, for instance, &i!d, sa#age, brutish"+ depends on its o&n repetition$ 'f the sign is not repeated, the connection bet&een signifier and signified becomes unstab!e$ But on the other hand, &hat the need for repetition sho&s is that the !in1 bet&een signifier and signified is unstab!e to begin &ith$ This instabi!ity endangers the efficaciousness of co!onia! discourse in constructing b!ac1" as &i!d and sa#age$" Bhabha adds a psychoana!ytica! dimension to this because he notices that &hat is despised as brutish" is at the same time strange!y desired$ Thus, in stereotypica! discourse &e find both derision and desire, or, to use a different set of psychoana!ytica! terms: phobia and fetish )<B+$ B

To understand this, &e need to e0p!ore 3reud/s definition of the fetish )cf$ be!o&, note on 3etish+$ 3reud argues that the rea!i,ation of the !itt!e boy that the mother does not ha#e a penis imp!ies for the boy that his o&n penis might be in danger$ This is meant by anxiety of castration$ To manage that an0iety, the boy disavows the mother not ha#ing a penis$ He is, in other &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 fetish ob6ect 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 that is the target of the stereotype and the one &ho is ma1ing use of the stereotype )i$e$, both co!oni,er and co!oni,ed+ are said to be essentially or onto!ogica!!y coherent, &ithout admitting the possibi!ity of change or differentiation$ But this coherence is nothing but a fantasy of &ho!eness$ This becomes understandab!e through an ana!ogy to the situation of infants$ 3or the infant, any sort of sp!it or difference fee!s !i1e a catastrophe because it means that 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 of coherence 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 first sets 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!ic order"+ that forbids the union &ith the mother$ %e can e5uate this entry into !anguage &ith the 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 boy is 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 the category 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 it needs to be accepted$ This is &here the fetish ob6ect comes in$ 3or 3reud, any ob6ect &as theoretica!!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 there is difference among b!ac1s as the other" and, at !east as important!y, that there is difference among the &hite co!oni,ed se!#es )e#en each indi#idua! se!f turns out to be incoherent+, &hi!e simu!taneous!y be!ie#ing that there is unity, coherence etc$ on both sides$ %hat is fetishi,ed is a!&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 stereotype as fetish," the psychoana!ytica! ana!ogy gains re!e#ance$ %hate#er is said about the identity of the other ref!ects the identity of the se!f$ Thus, constructing the other" in a stereotypica! &ay has the function of creating the fantasy of a coherent identity of the co!oni,er/s se!f, an identity that is seeming!y a!&ays in contro! D 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 stereotype the mu!tip!e be!ief structure of fetishism )' be!ie#e that the mother has no penis but ' a!so do not be!ie#e it"+ is actua!!y embraced and made use of$ Bhabha summari,es the ambi#a!ence articu!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 rampant se0ua!ity and yet innocent as a chi!d; he is mystica!, primiti#e, simp!e*minded and yet the

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@" )?B+$ Bhabha/s e#a!uation of stereotypica! discourse thus ends up on an ambi#a!ent note itse!f$ On the 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 the misrecognition that is ta1ing p!ace in Cacan/s imaginary )cf$ note on imaginary+ in that here 1no&!edge emerges as non*repressi#e" D one is a!most tempted to thin1 that Bhabha means non*oppressi#e" here$ The fact that Bhabha is re*enacting the ambi#a!ence that he is &riting about 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 as Verleugnung+$ 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!itGt einer traumatisierenden %ahrnehmung an,uer1ennen, insbesondere die .enis!osig1eit der 3rau$ Dieser -echanismus &ird #on 3reud besonders da,u angefHhrt, um den 3etischismus und die .sychosen ,u er1!Gren" )I>I+$ regime of truth: ( term introduced by the 3rench phi!osopher -iche! 3oucau!t )9>BJ*?K+$ His idea &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 into e0istence through the fact that peop!e define them in certain &ays$ 3or instance, psycho!ogy is not on!y about ana!y,ing peop!e$ 't a!so created )in the sense of defined"+ certain abnorma!ities, !i1e hysteria, in grouping together a number of beha#ior patterns that did not necessari!y be!ong together as one disease$ Thus, on!y by gi#ing a name to something this something comes into e0istence$ Lno&!edge produces truth and both 1no&!edge and truth are means of discursi#e po&er$ fetishism: 3reud defines fetishism as fo!!o&s: Mm es 1!arer ,u sagen, der 3etisch ist der =rsat, fHr den .ha!!us des %eibes )der -utter+, an den das LnGb!ein geg!aubt hatte und auf den es D &ir &issen &arum D nicht #er,ichten &i!!$ Der Hergang &ar a!so der, dass der Lnabe sich 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 seiner Beobachtung am %eibe den G!auben an den .ha!!us des %eibes un#erGndert gerettet hat$ =s hat ihn be&ahrt, aber auch aufgegeben; im Lonf!i1t ,&ischen dem Ge&icht der uner&Hnschten %ahrnehmnung und der StGr1e des Gegen&unsches ist es ,u einem Lompromiss ge1ommen@ 4a, das %eib hat im .sychischen dennoch einen .enis, aber dieser .enis ist nicht mehr dasse!be, das er frHher &ar$ =t&as anderes ist an seine Ste!!e getreten, ist so,usagen ,u seinem =rsat, ernannt &orden und ist nun der =rbe des 'nteresses, das sich dem frHheren ,uge&endet hatte )3reud, Sigmund: Gesamme!te %er1e, Band N'F, E9B*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

bet&een se!f and other ha#e not yet been dra&n$ They imagine they are one &ith their mother and, since they cannot conceptua!i,e difference bet&een themse!#es and others, they fee! they are 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+$ He ma1es the concept of the 'maginary c!ear in his ana!ysis of the -irror Stage$" 'n his artic!e The -irror Stage" he describes &hat happens &hen infants for the first time !oo1 into a mirror and recogni,e themse!#es$ The image in the mirror produces a cheerfu! fee!ing in the infant$ 3or the first time, he sees himse!f as an indi#idua! human being$ He fee!s in contro!$ He sees an image of himse!f and thereby rea!i,es that his body possesses a distinct shape$ 'n this sense, the mirror stage mar1s a change in the de#e!opment of the human begin D he begins to negotiate the borders of himse!f$ Ho&e#er, the mirror stage is mar1ed by the same ambi#a!ence that Bhabha ta!1s about$ The fee!ing of po&er is fo!!o&ed by frustration in the moment that the infant rea!i,es that &hi!e he sees himse!f in the mirror, he is sti!! dependent on an e!der &ho ho!ds him so he can actua!!y see the mirror image )the imp!ication being that the infant at that point can/t stand up by himse!f+$ Thus the image in the mirror not on!y enab!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 of
Cacan/s mirror stage, because it is the function of the fetish to in#o1e a fee!ing of coherence and mastery &hi!e at the same time hinting at the opposite$