|
أكـاديـمـي فـعّـال
|
رد: ~||Last semester of Senior Year ||~
اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Hope100
اذا ممكن تنزلينه هنا مره ثانيه!!
شكرا:**
|
هذا هو <<< مااعرف ارفق ملف
Part 1 The first paragraph
Definitions & distinction between these two terms:
: Cultural Diversity
-Any given culture is an "object of empirical knowledge" (206), that is, it preexists the knower and can be simply known for what it is.
-Culture is a "category of comparative ethics, aesthetics, or ethnology.
-Culture is pre-given and consists in the "recognition of pre-given cultural ‘contents’ and customs, held in a time-frame of relativism; it gives rise to anodyne liberal notions of multiculturalism, cultural exchange, or the culture of humanity. Cultural diversity is also the representation of a radical rhetoric of the separation of totalized cultures that live unsullied by the intertextuality of their historical locations, safe in the Utopianism of a mythic memory of a unique collective identity.
Cultural Difference:
-Cultures are discursively constructed: hence, Bhabha speaks of the "process of the enunciation of culture as knowledgeable, authoritative, adequate to the construction of systems of cultural identification.
-Culture is a function of a "process of signification through which statements of or on culture differentiate" (206) cultures from each other.
Culture is a function of cultural translation: the "problem of the cultural emerges only at the significatory boundaries of culture, where meanings and values are (mis)read or signs misappropriated"
Bhabha’s goal of making the distinction between the Cultural Diversity and Cultural Difference is is to "rethink our perspective on the identity of culture.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ـــــ
2 part
The Process of Creating Culture
Here Bhabha begins to describe the process of creating culture by debunking the idea of a nation or people as being holistic and pure
هنا تكلم عن كيف أن بالأصل الناس وكل المجتمعات عندهم نفس ال Culture والأختلاف بينهم بس بسبب وجهات النظر والرؤية المختلفة
وهذا الجزء من التكست يتكلم عنه وهو نفس الكلام الي شرحته الدكتورة بالكلاس
Cultures are never unitary in themselves, nor simply dualistic in relation of Self to Other. This is not because of some humanistic nostrum that beyond individual cultures we all belong to the human culture of mankind; nor is it because of an ethical relativism that suggests that in our cultural capacity to speak of and judge Others we necessarily “place ourselves in their position,” in a*kind of relativism of distance of which Bernard Williams has written at length.2
The reason a*cultural text or system of meaning cannot be sufficient unto itself is that the act of cultural enunciation—the place of utterance—is crossed by the difference of writing or*écriture. This has less to do with what anthropologists might describe as varying attitudes to symbolic systems within different cultures than with the structure of symbolic representation—not the content of the symbol or its “social function,” but the structure of symbolization. It is this “difference” in language that is crucial to the production of meaning and ensures, at the same time, that meaning is never simply mimetic and transparent.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
Then he talks about The Third Space And hybridity
Colonizer and Colonized culture :
the Colonizer’s culture, far from being the simple, oppressive force upon the Colonized culture, is open to ambivalence
Bhabha argues that even for the colonizer the construction of a representation of the Other is by no means straight-forward
The Colonizer, in trying to objectify the Colonized, creates a stereotype of the Colonized in order to reject it as inferior
The Colonizer creates an image of the Colonized and thinks that this image is holistic and pure, i.e., not open to ambivalence
The Colonized culture’s difference displaces the Colonizer’s own sense of unity and makes the Colonizer aware of its split self, which desires the Colonized to validate the created stereotype in order that it may see the Colonized as a fixed object.*
But the difference of the Colonized will not allow itself to be objectified and, in fact, the Colonized mimics the Colonizer, forcing the Colonizer to see itself as Object
The colonizer master, in seeing the native mimic him, sees himself but also not-himself, which is “double vision,” such that the master is no longer the Subject but is also the Object, where authority is not supposed to exist.* “Mimicry does not merely destroy narcissistic authority through the repetitious slippage of difference and desire. …[but] raises the question of the authorization of colonial representations” (LC 90).* Mimicry concretizes the ambivalence of both Colonizer and Colonized such that one cannot say who is Subject and who is Object, who is Self and who is Other.* The simple binary is breaking down, creating something that is neither Colonizer nor Colonized, because “the colonial presence is always ambivalent, split between its appearance as original and authoritative and its articulation as repetition and difference.
*********** So the two sides, in order to gain the meaning of this cultural clash, meet in between, in a liminal what is called “Third Space” that is neither Colonizer nor Colonized.*
Within this Third Space of the interstice, Colonizer and Colonized negotiate their cultural difference and create a culture that is a hybrid, which “is the revaluation of the assumption of colonial identity” of both Colonizer and Colonized.
Third Space
Third Space represents both the general conditions of language and the specific implication of the utterance in a*performative and institutional strategy of which it cannot “in itself” be conscious.
The intervention of the Third Space, which makes the structure of meaning and reference an contradictory process, destroys this mirror of representation in which cultural knowledge is continuously revealed as an integrated, open, expanding code.
(هذا تعريف لقيته عنه حسيته حلو) : The hybridity
The hybridity according to Homi. Bhabha is a key feature of* post-colonial identity . He argues that the nature of colonial identity is not monolithic,but ambiguous or hybrid and to*the interaction, even asymmetrical between theculture*of the*colonizer*and*the colonized.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــ
طبعاً هذا مو كل شي بس اهم النقاط الي حسيتها في ذا التكست
بس لازم تراجعو التكسست في أشياء عن ذي مفصلة
"أن أصبت من الله وأن أخطأت من نفسي ومن الشيطان "
Good Luck
^^
|