Summary Of Interpreter Of Maladies By Jhumpa Lahiri

1132 Words 5 Pages
Cultural Hybridity in Jhumpa Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies
The ancient people formed many groups according to the evironmental situation and lived different places that groups are distinguished from one another. Each particular group of people produced some norms and values according to their own geographical places, habits, customs and duties. These norms are shared by one generation to another generations people, which is a system of shared and learned behaviour acquired and followed by the hair. Thus, the habits of restrictions are the culture was formed and followed by the people even still in this modern days. Each country or each group of people give more important to their own culture. That is the part of life. Even, while they
…show more content…
Bhabha was coin the term ‘hybridity’ in a view that many writers have a sense of belonging to two cultures. This interaction of the two separate cultures are lead to the further conflicts that is clashes between the two, but it certainly opens a new routes and modes of thinking for the individual identity and group identities of the diaspora and guides them to outgrow the stereotyped experiences of being uprooted, displacement and marginalization.
Bhabha argues in his critical work The Location of Culture that “the very concepts of homogenous national cultures” must go through “a profound process of redefinition” (5), as he believes that the human beings have “no necessary or eternal belongingness” (175) to lose. The hybridity is positioned within the third space, and according to Bhabha, “this hybrid third space is an ambivalent site where cultural meaning and representation have no ‘premordial unity or fixity’.
To elaborate on Bhabha’s concept, Huddart remarks that he has challenged the inclination toward the polarity of the world into the “self” and the “other” by such concepts as hybridity which imply the “mixedness” and “impurity” of contemporary cultures. Since all cultures interact with each other, he believes that “cultures are not discrete phenomena ( The Location of Culture
…show more content…
As Vertovec implies in his work on “super-diversity,” migrants could not be conveniently grouped into clear-cut “diasporas” because the realities of cultural dynamics are more complex than those envisioned in simplistic models of “multiculturalism,” which wrongly attribute homogeneity and cultural stasis to groups of people from particular parts of the world. Bhabha and Stuart Hall has highlighted the quality of transcendental identity on the whole and the diasporic identity in particular. In his Introduction to the Questions of Cultural Identity, Hall argues that “identities are never unified” but ,“ increasingly fragmented and fractured; never singular but multiply constructed across” therefore they are “constantly in the process of change and transformation”(4). Inquiring into diasporic culture, both Bhabha and Hall move away from the “bipolar model” to “tripolar model” which gives more priority neither to the motherland nor to the residing country, rather accentuates the “middle ground” which Bhabha calls “the third space”

Related Documents