The Location of Culture

“Where, once, the transmission of national traditions was the major theme of a world literature, perhaps we can now suggest that transnational histories of migrants, the colonized, or political refugees—these border and frontier conditions—may be the terrains of world literature.”

In this quote, Bhabha shifts the focus of world literature from the transmission of fixed national traditions to the fluid, dynamic experiences of migrants, colonized people, and refugees, whose identities are shaped by movement and displacement. By emphasizing border and frontier conditions, Bhabha advocates for a more inclusive understanding of literature that reflects the realities of postcolonial and transnational experiences. This reimagining of world literature underscores the importance of hybridity, cross-cultural exchange, and the politics of migration in shaping contemporary narratives.

“[E]ach position is always a process of translation and transference of meaning. Each objective is constructed on the trace of that perspective that it puts under erasure; each political object is determined in relation to the other, and displaced in that critical act.”

Bhabha underscores the relational and contingent nature of meaning, suggesting that identities, political objects, and cultural concepts are never fixed but are instead shaped by constant processes of translation and displacement. The idea that each position “puts under erasure” the perspectives it excludes or negates reflects his belief in the hybridity of cultural and political forms, whereby meaning is always mediated through the interactions between different viewpoints. This notion of displacement challenges the idea of a stable, essential identity, highlighting the dynamic and negotiated nature of meaning in both cultural and political contexts.

“However impeccably the content of an ‘other’ culture may be known, however anti-ethnocentrically it is represented, it is its location as the closure of grand theories, the demand that, in analytic terms, it be always the good object of knowledge, the docile body of difference, that reproduces a relation of domination and is the most serious indictment of the institutional powers of critical theory.”

Bhabha critiques the tendency of critical theory to treat “other” cultures as fixed, passive objects of knowledge, thereby reflecting The Ongoing Impact of Colonial Legacies despite attempts at anti-ethnocentric representation. He argues that even the most well-intentioned, ethically aware scholarship can perpetuate domination if it treats cultural difference as a static, consumable object rather than a dynamic, contested process. By calling attention to the institutionalization of such perspectives, Bhabha highlights the limits of traditional critical frameworks that fail to fully engage with the complexity and agency inherent in postcolonial cultures.

“The ambivalent identification of the racist world—moving on two planes without being in the least embarrassed by it, as Sartre says of the anti-Semitic consciousness—turns on the idea of man as his alienated image; not Self and Other but the otherness of the Self inscribed in the perverse palimpsest of colonial identity.”

Bhabha explores the ambivalence at the heart of colonial and racist ideologies, where the colonizer simultaneously projects and internalizes otherness. By referencing Sartre’s notion of the antisemitic consciousness, Bhabha suggests that colonial racism functions through the alienation of the Self, where the colonizer’s identity is defined by the very otherness it seeks to dominate. This perverse palimpsest of colonial identity reflects the psychological conflict within the colonizer, as their identity is both constructed by and dependent on the dehumanization of the colonized, revealing the inherent instability and contradiction of colonial power.

“[T]o exist is to be called into being in relation to an otherness, its look or locus […] This process is visible in the exchange of looks between native and settler that structures their psychic relation in the paranoid fantasy of boundless possession and its familiar language of reversal.”

Bhabha highlights the interdependence of identity and otherness, asserting that existence itself is defined through the recognition of the “Other.” The exchange of looks between the colonizer (settler) and the colonized (native) represents the psychological dynamics that shape colonial relationships, with both parties locked in a paranoid fantasy of possession and control. The reversal Bhabha refers to suggests the distorted mirror in which the colonizer’s identity is built upon the dehumanization of the colonized, a process that reflects the psychic tensions and contradictions within colonial authority.

“The desire for the Other is doubled by the desire in language, which splits the difference between Self and Other so that both positions are partial; neither is sufficient unto itself.”

Here Bhabha emphasizes the incomplete and relational nature of identity, where both the Self and the Other are defined through a mutual dependency rather than as fixed, separate entities. The “desire in language” refers to the way language mediates and splits the relationship between Self and Other, suggesting that neither can be fully understood without the other. This partiality in both positions highlights the hybrid nature of identity, where boundaries are blurred and meaning is constantly negotiated rather than imposed. The passage also reflects Bhabha’s interest in Deconstructing Binaries in Colonial and Postcolonial Discourse.

“Cultures come to be represented by virtue of the processes of iteration and translation through which their meanings are very vicariously addressed to—through—an Other. This erases any essentialist claims for the inherent authenticity or purity of cultures which, when inscribed in the naturalistic sign of symbolic consciousness frequently become political arguments for the hierarchy and ascendancy of powerful cultures.”

Bhabha critiques the idea of cultural essentialism, arguing that cultures are not static or pure, but instead emerge through ongoing processes of iteration and translation, where their meanings are constantly shaped and refracted through encounters with the Other. This process erodes claims of inherent authenticity, emphasizing that cultures are always mediated through The Negotiation of Cultural Identity and Hybridity, rather than fixed or “pure.” By rejecting the essentialist notion of culture as a singular, unchanging entity, Bhabha exposes how such ideas are often mobilized as political tools to justify the dominance of powerful cultures, reinforcing hierarchical structures of power and identity.

“For it is the force of ambivalence that gives the colonial stereotype its currency: ensures its repeatability in changing historical and discursive conjunctures; informs its strategies of individuation and marginalization; produces that effect of probabilistic truth and predictability which, for the stereotype, must always be in excess of what can be empirically proved or logically construed.”

Bhabha argues that the ambivalence at the core of colonial stereotypes is what gives them their power and durability across different historical contexts. The stereotype is not based on empirical truth but on its repetition and predictability, which enable it to function as a tool of marginalization and individuation, shaping the way colonial subjects are categorized and understood. This excess—the way stereotypes persist beyond what is logically or factually substantiated—reveals the irrationality of colonial power structures and their ability to reinforce cultural hierarchies through symbolic violence, rather than through objective evidence.

“In order to understand the productivity of colonial power it is crucial to construct its regime of truth, not to subject its representations to a normalizing judgement. Only then does it become possible to understand the productive ambivalence of the object of colonial discourse—that ‘otherness’ which is at once an object of desire and derision, an articulation of difference contained within the fantasy of origin and identity.”

Bhabha argues that to understand the power dynamics of colonialism fully, one must focus not on judging the truth of colonial representations, but on examining their regime of truth—the way they produce and maintain power through ambivalence (See: Index of Terms). The “otherness” of the colonized is both desired and derided, serving as a dual object of fascination and contempt that reinforces colonial hierarchies. Bhabha reveals how this ambivalence is central to colonial discourse, as the colonizer’s fantasy of origin and identity relies on the simultaneous rejection and appropriation of the Other, making colonial identities unstable and dependent on the ongoing manipulation of difference.

“The myth of historical origination—racial purity, cultural priority—produced in relation to the colonial stereotype functions to ‘normalize’ the multiple beliefs and split subjects that constitute colonial discourse as a consequence of its process of disavowal.”

Bhabha critiques the myth of historical origination, such as the ideas of racial purity and cultural priority, which colonial discourse uses to normalize its own contradictions and split subjects. These myths serve to legitimize colonial authority by positioning the colonizer as the originating force of culture and identity, while simultaneously disavowing the multiplicities within colonized cultures. Bhabha argues that this process of disavowal—the denial of the hybrid, contested nature of colonial encounters—allows colonial discourse to present itself as coherent and stable, despite being built on deep contradictions and the marginalization of the colonized.

“The construction of colonial discourse is then a complex articulation of the tropes of fetishism—metaphor and metonymy—and the forms of narcissistic and aggressive identification available to the Imaginary.”

Bhabha argues that colonial discourse is built through the complex interplay of metaphor and metonymy (See: Index of Terms), which act as tropes of fetishism that objectify and distort the colonized. These metaphorical and metonymic processes create symbolic representations of the Other that are detached from their real, lived complexities, reducing them to simple, fetishized objects. The reference to narcissistic and aggressive identification highlights how colonialism also involves a psychological projection, where the colonizer defines their identity in opposition to the imagined inferiority of the colonized, creating a violent dynamic of self-validation through othering.

“Mimicry, as the metonym of presence is, indeed, such an erratic, eccentric strategy of authority in colonial discourse. Mimicry does not merely destroy narcissistic authority through the repetitious slippage of difference and desire. It is the process of the fixation of the colonial as a form of cross-classificatory, discriminatory knowledge within an interdictory discourse, and therefore necessarily raises the question of the authorization of colonial representations.”

Bhabha explores mimicry (See: Index of Terms) here as a disruptive force within colonial discourse. Rather than simply reinforcing colonial authority, mimicry, by highlighting the slippage of difference, undermines the narcissistic authority of the colonizer, exposing the instability and contradictions within colonial power. Bhabha further asserts that mimicry is not just a process of imitation, but a strategic act that challenges the colonial system by disrupting the classifications that define the colonizer’s dominance. It complicates colonial representations, raising important questions about who has the power to authorize knowledge and define identity in a colonial context.

“Between the Western sign and its colonial signification there emerges a map of misreading that embarrasses the righteousness of recordation and its certainty of good government.”

Bhabha highlights the gap between the Western sign—a symbol or concept understood within European frameworks—and its colonial signification, which is shaped by the encounter with the colonized. This misreading exposes the inherent contradictions in colonial representations, revealing how colonial discourse distorts and misinterprets cultural signs. By doing so, it challenges the certainty of colonial authority and “good government,” suggesting that the colonial project is built on misunderstandings and false certainties, undermining the claims of rationality and control that colonial powers assert.

“To be the father and the oppressor; just and unjust; moderate and rapacious; vigorous and despotic: these instances of contradictory belief, doubly inscribed in the deferred address of colonial discourse, raise questions about the symbolic space of colonial authority.”

Through these conflicting binaries, Bhabha examines the contradictory and ambivalent nature of colonial authority, where the colonizer simultaneously occupies the roles of both benevolent father and oppressive tyrant. These contradictions, doubly inscribed in colonial discourse, expose the instability of colonial power, as it relies on opposing beliefs and justifications to sustain its authority. Bhabha suggests that these contradictions, through their deferred address, complicate the colonial symbolic space, raising critical questions about the authenticity and legitimacy of colonial rule, which is built on a foundation of conflict and ambiguity.

“As a signifier of authority, the English book acquires its meaning after the traumatic scenario of colonial difference, cultural or racial, returns the eye of power to some prior, archaic image or identity.”

Bhabha examines how the English book—as a symbol of colonial authority—becomes a powerful sign only after it is framed within the context of colonial difference. The book, representing colonial knowledge, gains its significance by invoking a traumatic past and a prior image or identity that links it to the colonial project’s racial or cultural hierarchies. Bhabha suggests that the book’s meaning is constructed through the colonial encounter, highlighting how colonial power relies on revisiting and reinforcing outdated, often dehumanizing, representations of the colonized.

“Hybridity is the sign of the productivity of colonial power, its shifting forces and fixities; it is the name for the strategic reversal of the process of domination through disavowal (that is, the production of discriminatory identities that secure the ‘pure’ and original identity of authority).”

Here Bhabha positions hybridity (See: Index of Terms) as a subversive force within colonial power dynamics, revealing how the blending of cultures challenges colonial authority’s rigid claims to purity and authenticity via The Negotiation of Cultural Identity and Hybridity. Hybridity, rather than being a mere product of colonialism, becomes a strategic reversal that undermines the colonial project by exposing the contradictions inherent in its process of creating discriminatory identities. By introducing the mixing of cultural elements, hybridity disrupts the colonial project’s desire to maintain fixed, “pure” identities, highlighting the fluidity and instability at the heart of colonial power.

“It is in this sense that the culturally unassimilable words and scenes of nonsense, with which I started—the Horror, the Horror, the owl’s deathcall, the Marabar caves—suture the colonial text in a hybrid time and truth that survives and subverts the generalizations of literature and history.”

Bhabha uses “nonsense”—seemingly disjointed or irrational words and images—to signify the hybridity inherent in colonial encounters. By referencing cultural symbols like “the Horror” and the Marabar caves, he illustrates how colonial texts are disrupted by elements that do not fit neatly into Western frameworks of history or literature, thereby Deconstructing Binaries in Colonial and Postcolonial Discourse, often inadvertently. These unassimilable fragments subvert the colonial project by creating a hybrid time and truth, one that resists colonial generalizations and exposes the incoherence and contradictions at the heart of colonial narratives. Through this, Bhabha suggests that colonial power cannot fully control or standardize the meanings it seeks to impose on the colonized, as these nonsensical moments challenge its authority.

“[T]he narrative and psychological force that nationness brings to bear on cultural production and political projection is the effect of the ambivalence of the ‘nation’ as a narrative strategy.”

Here Bhabha argues that nationness—the concept of national identity—functions as a narrative strategy that is marked by ambivalence, meaning that it simultaneously unites and divides. The psychological force of nationhood, as it shapes both cultural production and political projection, is rooted in the tension between the desire for a coherent national identity and the contradictions that arise from cultural diversity and historical conflict. This ambivalence complicates the formation of a stable national narrative, revealing how the idea of the nation is both a source of unity and a site of fracture.

“Counter-narratives of the nation that continually evoke and erase its totalizing boundaries—both actual and conceptual—disturb those ideological manoeuvres through which ‘imagined communities’ are given essentialist identities.”

This passage highlights how counter-narratives of the nation disrupt the totalizing boundaries imposed by dominant national ideologies. By evoking and erasing these boundaries, counter-narratives challenge the essentialist identities that are often used to define and exclude within the concept of imagined communities. This process undermines the idea of a fixed, unified national identity, revealing the fluid and contested nature of belonging and calling attention to the marginalized voices and histories that disrupt national narratives.

“Culture as a strategy of survival is both transnational and translational.”

Bhabha’s words underscore that culture—as a means of survival—is inherently both transnational and translational, implying that cultural identity is shaped and reshaped through movement across borders and the negotiation of meanings between different contexts. This fluidity reflects The Negotiation of Cultural Identity and Hybridity—how marginalized or colonized communities adapt, hybridize, and reinterpret cultural practices, engaging in a process of translation that challenges fixed, dominant cultural norms. The transnational and translational nature of culture, in Bhabha’s view, becomes a form of resistance to hegemonic forces, as it allows for the creation of new cultural forms that exist outside of static national definitions.

“The indeterminacy of rumour constitutes its importance as a social discourse. Its intersubjective, communal adhesiveness lies in its enunciative aspect. Its performative power of circulation results in the contagious spreading, ‘an almost uncontrollable impulse to pass it on to another person’. The iterative action of rumour, its circulation and contagion, links it with panic—as one of the affects of insurgency.”

In this passage, Bhabha explores the indeterminacy of rumor as a powerful social force that transcends clear meaning or truth, emphasizing its ability to circulate and create collective panic. Rumor’s performative and contagious nature reflects how it functions as a communal force capable of stirring unrest or insurgency. By linking rumor to the affect of panic, Bhabha suggests that it becomes a means of social mobilization and resistance, a way in which subjugated or oppressed groups can challenge dominant narratives and disrupt the status quo through its repetition and spread.

“Panic spreads. It does not simply hold together the native people but binds them affectively, if antagonistically—through the process of projection—with their masters.”

Bhabha argues that panic not only unifies oppressed native people but also binds them to their colonial masters, albeit in a tense, antagonistic way. Through projection, the natives’ fear, frustration, and anger are redirected toward their colonizers, intensifying the psychological and emotional stakes of colonial power. This dynamic reveals how colonial relationships are not only about domination and submission but also about a constant, often unconscious, affective exchange, where both parties are implicated in the emotional turbulence of colonial rule. This passage reflects Bhabha’s interest in Deconstructing Binaries in Colonial and Postcolonial Discourse.

“By projecting the panic and anxiety on native custom and ethnic particularity, the British attempted to contain and ‘objectify’ their anxiety, finding a ready ‘native’ reference for the undecidable event that afflicted them.”

Bhabha suggests that the British colonialists projected their panic and anxiety onto the “native” customs and cultural practices as a way to objectify and manage their own internal fears about the uncertainty and instability of colonial rule. By labeling native cultures as “other,” they sought to contain their own insecurities by attributing them to an easily identifiable, external source. This projection highlights the psychological dimension of colonialism, where colonizers used cultural differences to displace their anxiety, reaffirming their sense of control while simultaneously entrenching stereotypes and domination.