Diversity Reading List

This work analyzes the contemporary conditions of culture and criticizes common definitions of identity. Bhabha makes use of continental philosophy, social sciences and literature (crediting Morrison, Salman Rushdie, and even Anish Kapoor), draws on Said and Spivak, and reads Fanon extensively—blending anti-colonial critique with post-structuralism. His main object is the long-term effects of colonialism on social identities and culture, even after the departure of the colonizers or the abolition of slavery. From an inquiry concerning the effects of the awareness of social positions and the political usages of identity, he finds that culture is characterized by hybridation and going beyond established limits. Against the idea that cultures are fixed traditions belonging to identified communities, Bhabha tries to explain how social meanings are an on-going, dynamic and relational process, underlining contradictions, ambivalence, and two of the main concepts of this book: hybridity (the mixed nature of culture) and mimicry (the adoption of ideas and values from other cultures). In his view, "[d]ifferences in culture and power are constituted through the social conditions of enunciation" (p. 242), meaning that culture needs to be seen as fragmented, unstable and sometimes antagonistic. Bhabha elaborates a definition of the boundary not as a limit, but as the site for theoretical production and artistic creation, exemplified by the proliferation of "post" in contemporary theory (poststructuralism, postmodernism, etc), which he understands as a movement of going beyond, pointing towards a constant invention of oneself.

Publisher's Note: This classic work, first published in France in 1955, profoundly influenced the generation of scholars and activists at the forefront of liberation struggles in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Nearly twenty years later, when published for the first time in English, Discourse on Colonialism inspired a new generation engaged in the Civil Rights, Black Power, and anti-war movements and has sold more than 75,000 copies to date.

Aimé Césaire eloquently describes the brutal impact of capitalism and colonialism on both the colonizer and colonized, exposing the contradictions and hypocrisy implicit in western notions of "progress" and "civilization" upon encountering the "savage," "uncultured," or "primitive." Here, Césaire reaffirms African values, identity, and culture, and their relevance, reminding us that "the relationship between consciousness and reality are extremely complex. . . . It is equally necessary to decolonize our minds, our inner life, at the same time that we decolonize society."

In this talk given in 1983 at the University of Illinois, Spivak criticizes a Western understanding of the political subject by examining how Third World subjects are perceived within Western discourse. She studies the way Western representations prevent the subaltern woman from making her own voice heard. Her critique depends on a definition of the subaltern, the “Other,” who is paradoxically both constituted and erased by Western theories, and is neither heard nor answered, leading Spivak to question their very possibility to speak. She specifically uses the history of British colonialism's relation to the Hindu practice of sati, the ritual self-immolation of a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre, which was read by the British as barbarism and deprived of the social signification it holds. Spivak highlights the contradictions of the so-called “civilizing mission” of colonialism, showing how women’s rights have been used by colonialism against the subalterns themselves, thereby robbing them of their own voices. Drawing critically on French theory (Derrida, Althusser, Deleuze, Foucault), Marxism (Marx, Benjamin, Gramsci) and other postcolonial scholars (Said), this landmark essay mobilizes historical documentation alongside critical theory to produce a seminal work of political and social philosophy. At the same time, Spivak offers a meta-philosophical enquiry, pointing to a major bias in the very constitution and discourse of the discipline.