Fanon's Theory Of Cultural Identity

747 Words2 Pages

However, unlike Bhabha who classified cultural hybridity in a positive way and without an imposed hierarchical system of classification, Fanon, writing in a different time, viewed hybridity in a cultural context as a way for the marginal group to embrace the ruling cultural conventions and dismiss or even abandon aspects of his/her identity that are not coherent in the dominant culture (the one that is imposing its norms and identity on another). For example, via Fanon’s theory, a hybrid identity (Italian-American, African-American, etc.) oppresses the Other half of his/herself (for example, the African side of an African-American) and accepts the dominant half (for instance, the American side of an African-American), which is determined by the categorical “us”, in order to abide by the social norm. Applying Fanon’s idea to Inokichi and Nozaki’s case study, it is clear that the us/them dichotomy, commonly attributed to Othering discourse, is transcribed into “United States” and “Japan.” Thus, these grouped categories represent a fantasized idea of American and Japanese identities, but for those with hybrid identities, either through birth or migration, (Italian-American, African-American), who live in these spaces, it is difficult to adhere to this fantasized definition for they have dual identities, consisting of their Othered self (the Japanese in them) and their dominant self (American). Thus, according to Fanon, those who identify as hybrids maintain there dominant self, and Other their othered self, imposing the hierarchical system of classification that Bhabha did not consider. Viewing these two opposing notions (Bhabha’s and Fanon’s) within Othering discourse it becomes evident that hybridity both complicates and simplif... ... middle of paper ... ...s that Bhabha only views hybridity through the lens of the individual who wishes to adopt and synthesize his personal identity and does not account for the normativization of fluidity and change and the recognition that certain aspects of cultures cannot be blended. He also claims that Bhabha does not address the infinite ability to question and renegotiate identity; the idea that identity formation is exclusively individualistic and not related to notions of community inclusion or exclusion. Kompridis’ essay enlightens the reader’s understanding of how hybridity has been used to render conceptually and normatively, indefensible the political claims of culture by skewing the social understanding of cultural identity. Kompridis’ analysis is important because it demonstrates how Othering discourse fails to recognize the identity and nonidentity of cultural categories.

Open Document