Author(s): Haleshappa VV
In the context of this paper’s central logic of building Indian identity in a multicultural society, discuss hybridity, “otherness” and stereotypes. The purpose is to recognize the hybridity, otherness, stereotype relevance, and how the concept of “The Third Space” contributes to the formation of a cooperative identity and context to multicultural association.
In this developing consistent and interactive world, the stream of information and the group of individuals is a major reason for creating a new culture of mixed foreign and local thoughts and values. The word hybridity is imparted in several respects, such as the hybrid economy (a mix of private companies and active contribution of government in the world economy). Hybrid vehicles, hybrid languages (creole and patois), and most prominently, the hybrid culture of this research area.
East hope claims that hybridity has three implications. They are in terms of biology, race, and culture. In biological sciences, a hybrid refers to the combination of human, animal, or plant genetic material.
Some of the vital researchers in the field of hybridity Homi Bhabha, Robert Young, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy, to name the concepts of Deleuze, Derrida, Marx, Fanon and Bhaktin to name a few. In particular, Bhaba developed the concept of hybridity in context to the theory of literature and culture and described the building of identity and culture in terms of post-apartheid and justice.
On the other hand, due to the rise of immigrants and economic liberalization by the last imperialism, the term hybridity is used in many different ways and is a contentious phrase in post-war research. It can acquire several forms, such as political, cultural and linguistic. In context to the studies of post-colonialism, the term ?hybrid” usually subjects to ?creation of new trans-cultural forms within the contact zone caused by colonization. Another aspect of this expression is ?hybrid talk”. This is related to the subsequent rise of the debate and its criticism of imperialism in cultural terms.
In context to linguistics, Bakhtin proposed the concept of linguistic hybridity. In accordance to Young, he can double the language in one sentence, and Bakhtin says that the heterogeneity of languages mixes two social languages within one utterance, Asserts that it is distinguished by other causes of social pronunciation. In short, it describes ?simultaneously different abilities”. Young also hypothesized that for Bakhtin, hybridity imparts the process of formal understanding of others’ speech about a ?double-spoken” and ?double-stylized” language.
Hybridity is termed as controversial in postcolonial research and it generally subjects to the conception of new trans-cultural forms in familiar territories, not only in context to colonization but also from new cultural consciousness and immigration. Presently in the world, hybrids are an effective cultural alternative. Hybridity means mixing one source culture with another
In other words, a cultural hybrid is a culture created when one culture is harmed or affected by another. With globalization, it becomes inevitable. Through media, transport and science, the whole world becomes a small village. Hybridization takes many forms, not just cultural forms. By enhancing the multilingual narrative of languages, societies, races, politics, etc., the use of the synthesizable and transformative power of the situation of multilingualism was achieved by cultural critic and linguist/ theorist Mikhail Bakhtin. The notion of polyphony of voice in context to the society is indirect and also in Bakhtin’s thought of carnivalesque.
Hybridity is often subjected in post-colonial discourse to describe hybrid cultural forms. This is a exchange in cross-cultural terms. Residents of northern colonial societies have three cultural options: integration, indigenousness, and hybridization. The hierarchy is completely consistent with the hierarchy culture. In this context, individuals imitate language and scrounge ideas and customs (usually in the neighborhood and the west) to refuse their structures in socio-cultural terms. Indigenization simply means accepting your culture and rejecting everything in context to your culture. Combination and indigenousness may seem possible in theory, but in practice, they are almost impossible and impossible.
Thus, hybridization is a practical and effective alternative to employing cultural hybridization, thereby allowing colonization (or once colonized), either forcibly or as needed. Individuals borrow colonial (or once colonial) social and cultural patterns. Bill Ashcroft, et al. writes that in both post-colonial societies, both force colonial powers to unite political and economic domination, or force pioneers to replace indigenous individuals and reunite with new social patterns sometimes we write hybrids as a consequence of mindful moments of cultural repression. Hybridization is not only related to settlers but may also be practiced by settlers.
In the scene of post-colonialism, immigration in context to one division of the world to another is embracing a new culture as a viable cultural option that cannot be rejected or fully accepted. As such, hybridity is concerned with a variety of issues that are driven and expelled in context to known social environments and indigenous cultures that force individuals to adapt to new social styles. The hybrid concept subjects a central place in context to the post-colonial discourse. This is especially true when considering the potential for interconnectivity, the expansion of the two cultures, and the capability to negotiate differences, and has been praised as a type of advanced cultural intelligence and privileged privilege. The word hybrid has recently been connected with the work of Homi K. Bhabha. An analysis of Homi K. Bhabha’s colony / colonial relationship emphasizes the interdependence and mutual construction of domination. Baba wrote: A re-evaluation of the concept of colonial identity with repeated effects of hybrid discriminatory identity. It shows the necessary distortion and displacement in all places of domination and discrimination. Bhabha has imparted a hybrid notion of hostility and discrimination in context to cultural and literary theories. With regard to sentiment, hybridism is the process by which colonial novelists transform the identity of a colonized settler into a single, unified, universal structure, one that is known but new. It does not create. Bhabha subjects that a new hybrid subject or identity location emerged in context to the built-in elements of the colony and that was colonized by testing the authenticity and validity of the essential identity in cultural terms.
In post-colonial discourse, the notion that identity and culture are real or indispensable is controversial. Bhabha himself recognizes the danger of identity in post-colonial thinking and claims that culture is in the process of continuous integration of all kinds. Therefore, Bhabha subjects to create equal opportunity amid cultures through hybridization. This is a hybrid where the culture is balanced and the cultural hierarchy is destroyed. There is no discrimination, superstition, or cultural bias. Bhabha further explains: A major change occurs when the effects of colonial power are viewed as the creation of hybridity, rather than the noisy order of colonial novelists or the quiet repression of indigenous traditions. It expresses ambiguity at the source of discourse governing novelist, enables catastrophic setup based on its uncertainty, and turns catastrophic domination into intervention. Hybridity is therefore a colonial heritage and assumes a power relationship amid dominant culture and domination. Thus, hybridity creates a new form that shares both cultural ideas and beliefs, but is beneath the influence of the leading individual.
Hybridization is creating different attributes that makes it unfeasible for the eye to notice the hybrid. Robert Young demonstrates hybridity in the subsequent ways: Hybridization allows you to create a single entity by forcing two or more parts, transforming one object into two and converting the same to a diff. [?] thus, hybridization creates similarities and differences in similarity as differences, but one is no longer the same and the differences are no longer differences. (158) Hybridity generally imparts exchange in cross-cultural terms. This highlights cultural differences in colonial and postnatal processes in the occurrence of transculture. The situation in the northeast is not a one-way situation in context to east to west, as hybridism involves an understanding of culture and meaningful places. Thus, the intercultural flow amid the west and the east develops a cultural hybrid of the situation.
Robert Young did not think there was a clear idea of hybridity. He said there is no solo or correct concept regarding hybridity, it changes and repeats with change. Therefore, culture is not stable in context of Fanon’s aspect of ground-breaking cultural and political change. Homi K Bhabha writes: Cultural differences and diversity are cultural significance and symbolism without first unity and stability. Even the same symbol can be assigned, translated, resized, interpreted and reread. In addition to discussing hybrids in space, Bhabha also sheds light on the colonial identity of both colonies with the existence of direct post-conflict issues. Bill Ashcroft states, Ambivalence subjects the composite mix of magnetism and repression that characterize the relationship amid colonialists and colonialists. Instead of assuming that some colonial and post-colonial issues are ?consensual’ and some ?resistant’, the bipartisan suggests that the presence of complexity and resistance in the relationship by a fluctuation in colonial post-colonial may make it nurturing and exploitative, or may represent itself.
Robert Young suggests that the hypothesis of ambivalence is a way to turn tables in Bhabha’s empire discourse. The colonial margin is termed as the borderline and marginal and is responded as equivocal. However, this is not a simple opposite of binary, as the spirit indicates that both colonies and colonies are involved in colonial negotiations. Ambivalence develops power from its position of power, so the idea is related to hybridity, because novelist is synthesized when placed in a dominant context that appears to treat itself in other cultures. Hence, in the post-colonial and colonial views, the subject is in a bilateral condition.
Bhabha seeks to clarify the imitation and ambivalence of colonial discourse in his cultural position. When colonial issues resonate with colonial cultural practices, assumptions, institutions and values, energizes encourage immigrants to imitate and explain the bilateral relationship amid colonial and colonial. Thus, mimicry identifies the specificity of uncertainty in controlling colonial domination or investor behavior. Colonizers imitated the neighborhood by adopting the language, culture, and values of the ruler, as Bhabha said, ?Almost the same but not perfect”. Bhabha applies what he talks about in the post-colonial situation to the post-scenario colonial situation. As a colonial subject, the post-colonial diasporic problem also tends to emulate a dominant culture to achieve a particular social status. This imitation ultimately results in a cultural hybrid in space.
Postcolonial critics are influenced by hybridity, globalization and many other factors. In Northeastern societies, as mentioned, there are three cultural options, mainly for assimilation, indigenousness, or prevention and hybridity. Third, hybridity is accepted as one of the most used cultural options in this postmodern society. The rest of the culture is inherently myopic because it is leaning towards cultural isolation. Tribalism rejects everything in context to foreign cultures and accepts only natives. Regaining its own cultural creativity is great and this may seem plausible, but in the age of globalization, science and technology and the media, especially in very dominant cultures For Westerners who replicate the, you may be satisfied for a while. They face cultural isolation, mixed chaos, extremism, as they cannot accept their own culture, whichis nothing. Thus, in terms of combination and indigenous, cultural crossing is a more viable cultural alternative to this postmodern stream. Hybridization allows you to accept fine and helpful things in context to other cultures and prevent terrible things in regard to the original culture. At this juncture, one can safeguard the exclusivity of the cultural practices. Therefore, you must not feel alienation or social disadvantage.
The hybrid concept of emotions evolves in context to cultural and literary theories that identify the governing body (colonization of colonists) transforming the identity of settlers (others) into beliefs that are essential. Bhabha interprets that it is this new blurry border or theme space that has become a local area of destruction and movement of colonial narrative and cultural structures and has a major influence on practice.
Bhabha states that the cultural differences amid diverse groups, while logical for one person, are actually very complex, impossible and subjective, unifying different types of culture, Claims to try to pretend to be easily coexistent. He states the concept that at all levels all kinds of cultural diversity can be subjected based on certain universal concepts, the ?individuals”, ?classes” or ?individuals with their own economic and social organizations” It can be dangerous for both race and cultural practices. Trying to understand them is very limited
Bhabha believes that the process of cultural hybridization creates a new era of discussion of new unknown meanings and presentations. Almost all situations, such as classroom situations, negotiations on discussions about the succession of the Western ideology are the basis of the influence of the cultural norms of the nation. In addition, for him, the debate on the western colonial legacy society is inevitable and inevitable because of the immigration culture, and instead is admitted to society in a way that is completely avoided and a celebration. The validity of a useful diversity situation has been questioned.
Cultural politics in post-colonial terms have demanded: because of confluence, integration and consolidation of the dominant cultures blend and spread further. The cultural discrimination process increases the chances for more individuals to think of themselves as they have more opportunities to emphasize their local culture.
Hybridity must be seen as an ongoing trade in updating and compromising identity practices. From an analytical standpoint, we examine identity and culture hypotheses, from our dualism to the feeling of both.
Hybridity is a divisive term on the topic of new identity-building on colonial studies, which originates in context to the intercultural shift created by decolonization. The word is derived from horticulture. That is, a new third species is created, crossing two species. Hybridity defies the thought of authentic national identity. Indian immigrants in London, or boys of Japanese women and American men, could stand for this hybrid self, a postcolonial lineage (or postcolonial consequence).
Salman Rushdie’s literature is frequently praised for its power and postcolonial power and representational challenges. Some have marginal subject position inscriptions that violate normative subjection about identity. The experience of Rushdie’s life is not entirely under his control, it takes a place of social and sexual freedom, and is an example of hybrid issues and how immigrants can live and survive as a citizen, with regular qualities as chief novelist. As a result, the influence of Rushdie’s hybridity and immigrant heroes has a limited influence on the lessons of success, by consistently reporting rather than destroying the dominant Western values. This was made by theorizing its original traits and production setting, and evaluating the film’s hero’s interaction with the personalities of Rushdie’s recent novels: Shalimar the Clown, The Enchantress of Florence, Joseph Anton.
Salman Rushdie’s work fuses different narratives and blends cultural institutions of different genres, both east and west. His mix includes many stories, cultural events and references in context to history. ?Rushdie has listed numerous character developments and motions across multiple timelines, settings and cultures” (Nierste). Rushdie subjects that a multicultural hybrid world can survive, and that such a culture is more beautiful and desirable than ?plural”, and that the last thing is that Rushdie understands the benefits of pluralism in a way that hybrids and non-hybrids cannot, and because of their ability to see. The world is working towards a hybrid world of multiculturalism. The characters or cultural hybrids become divided identities in cultural terms or are sandwiched amid numerous cultural influences. The consequence is an emotion of confusion as we gain an improved position to understand the pluralistic nature of the modern world.
Rushdie knows the emotion of being a hybrid. Born and raised in India and later in Pakistan, he spent the majority of his life in England. He often gives this valuable experience in telling the story of this transition from modern-day north to west, a modern capitalist nation. In fact, most writers of the postcolonial era have the same knowledge, but each is treated in a different way
On the other hand, Rushdie states that fire hydrants can originate from more intercultural climates, and that benefits are an irreparable glory of uniqueness, combining two distinct opposing attitudes. The state will be achieved. However, if something new is found, the ?old place” must be left as a hidden chorus, to cross the boundaries of ?the third space”. In this sense, the magical reality is the literal manifestation of cultural difference.
Salman Rushdie is lying in the middle. India and the West can always be different but there is no such thing as all identities being hybrid and mixed and pure identity everywhere in the world. The techniques used by Rushdie are mainly personification. In this context, it can be attached that personification is subjected with hybridity
In addition to opposing excessive hybridity, Maulana and his counterparts, on the other hand, have exceptions to the supernatural pair of liquidity and difference, two of the most widely recognized terms in post-war regions. In the village, fluidity, the key to hybrid awareness, has naturally emerged. Concepts, stories, and names were formed as seamlessly as possible. This trend is mainly due to the lack of underwater cultural divisions or mutually exclusive areas, and the presence of imagination without boundaries. Pyarelal Kaul’s house was certainly moved in context to one community to another, but in the case of his wife, Pamposh Kaul, chose to call herself by a name like her friend Firdos Noman’s. In the firstconversation amid Boonyi and Shalimar, Pyarelal, lost himself on the River next to Muskadoon, and they sat on a rock next to the courtyard. Anecdotes, stories, and stories are mixed together, regardless of their origin, creating a common pool and then drawn by traveling players. Abdullah Noman’s memory is considered a library of stories. However, he said, ?Because every family in Pachigam has such a story, and every family story is told to every child like everyone else”.
Unfortunately, when the Boonyi fled to Delhi and became the ?ambassador” of the US ambassador, the magic circle worked. Some argue that the vibrant atmosphere of pachingam is equal to the dominant source of the carnival Bakhtin. A renowned theoretical expert, Carnival, for reference, implies that the subject of the genealogy is the apparent disappointment and neglect of pure and familiar communication amid individuals. There is a ?carnival delusion”.
All structures and disciplines have an ?ecstatic relativity” and are an entirely eternal biological process of life and death, nutrition and decay. In fact, modest social interactions were so deep that subjectivity was more predictable than multiculturalism. Selfconsciousness is social, and one person’s uniqueness is nothing less than the gift of another, the grace of a neighbor. Non-humans are also included in this wonderful interconnection (birds are an integral part of the village’s spiritual philosophy; the main effect is that animals live with local birds after death).
However, there is a caveat. The environment allows the case of ?celebrating a kind of human body” but ?licensees practicing a kind of misery”, so that there is room for multiple discourses about forms of novelists, as is clearly visible. Opponents who do not give ?without footlights and do not separate performers and audiences” are unaware. On the contrary, the dangerous road players received generous patronage in context to the ruled king Maharaja Hari Singh. The spectators, along with the performers, noticed the existence of a special royal family when Shalimar Gardens attempted to play a full-fledged bush. Even Boonyi was tempted during a performance specially arranged by the U.S. Ambassador for the guest. Instead of laughing and laughing at novelists according to the Carnival Spirit, Bakhtin works for village artists in search of material rewards, perhaps an image that cannot bear the test of historical validity [1-66].
