Stuart Hall Cultural Identity And Diaspora Analysis
Hall argues that culture is very much there to shape identities of immigrants (223). He associates culture with identity because to him the identities of immigrants are always belonged to culture. Hall in Cultural identity and Diaspora gives two ways to understand identity. In the first position he defines identity as one shared culture and similarities amongst a group of people and the second position includes both similarities and differences amongst a group of people/immigrants, and moreover in this position identity is a matter of being and becoming (223). He describes these two position to understand the shifting nature of identities, but he clears that if someone wants to understand the trauma of immigrants in postcolonial context then the second position is more appropriate …show more content…
It involves both past and future. It is far from the issues of place and time and also from culture and history. It is about ‘what we really are?’ and ‘what we are becoming’? Cultural identities always a part of some history they come from a point which has a history. But they go through a process of shifting and transformation. Now they are not fixed as they were used to be fixed in past rather they are facing a constant game of power, culture and history (P, 225). It is not only about searching or recovery of past or a lost thing which on finding is going to protect immigrant’s sense of self and give them a position in past (225). Immigrants are always seen as “others” in foreign land they cannot get rid of their previous identities and faces difficulties to adopt new identities.
Identities do not have universality so they can shift or change themselves at whatever time and place as Hall describes this situation the formation of identity can be seen as ever-shifting or ever-changing process which is away from being fixed eternally in a postcolonial context (225). So Hall ideas of identity totally suitable for exploring immigrant’s trauma in a postcolonial society. He further explains that it is not necessary to know ‘who we are’ or from ‘where we have come’. In fact ‘what we might become’ is more important