This chapter seeks to look at key principles that underpin this analysis. Hybridity, 'otherness' and stereotyping in postcolonial studies are reviewed with regards to the central discussion of this thesis which is the assignments teachers and students play at targeting the building of distributed Malaysian identification in multicultural classrooms. The intention of this books review is to recognize the importance of hybridity, otherness and stereotyping in post colonial studies to my research and exactly how Bhabha's notion of 'The Third Space' helps to formulate the establishment of collective identification in students' 'area of development' (Gutierrez, Baqudano-Lopez and Tejeda (1999).
The movement of information and the movements of men and women in this ever before growing, interconnected and interactive world have been a deep reason in the creation of new civilizations by means of mixing of local and foreign ideas and beliefs. This kind of mixing is a tiny area of the loose and slippery meaning of hybridity. The word hybridity is used in many areas such as cross economy (the mixture of private companies and government dynamic participation in global overall economy) (Koizumi, 2010); hybrid cars, hybrid language (creole and patois), and most importantly in relation to this research is in the world of hybrid ethnicities (Tomlinson, 1999; Coombs & Brah, 2000).
Easthope (1998) contends that hybridity can have three meanings; in terms of biology, ethnicity and culture. In natural science, crossbreed could imply the composition of genetic component in individual, animals or crops. In the next and third explanations, hybridity can be understood to mean someone who possesses several ethnic and ethnical identities. However de Toro emphasises that the meaning of hybridity in modern ethnical theory has nothing to do with the natural and zoological origins of the term (de Toro, 2004). Hutnyk (2005) on the other side reveals that the word hybridity and syncretism seem to provide the inner ethnic aspects of colonialism and the global market.
Several key thinkers in the realm of hybridity includes among others Homi Bhabha, Robert Young, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy, who sketch upon related concepts from Deleuze, Derrida, Marx, Fanon and Bakhtin to name a few. (Ref) In particular, Bhabha has developed his concept of hybridity from literary and social theory to describe the construction of culture and identification within conditions of colonial antagonism and collateral (Meredith, 1998; Bhabha, 1994; Bhabha, 1996).
In socio-cultural milieu, hybridity is employed as an explicative term and 'hybridity' became a useful tool in building a discourse of 'racial mixing up' which was seen as an aberration in the end of 18th century. The type of hybrid during this era was generally discussing inter relationship of 'black' and 'white' and the offspring were recognized as the cross types product. It has additionally been referred to as an abuse term in colonial discourse for many who are products of miscegenation or mixed-breeds. Papastergiadis in Werbner & Modood (2000) on the other side asserts that 'the positive feature of hybridity is the fact it invariably acknowledges that identity is constructed by using a negotiation of difference and that the occurrence of fissures, spaces and contradictions is definitely not a sign of failing'. (ibid:258). Therefore hybridity is seen in both positive and negative forms.
Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin (2006) assert that hybridity occurs in post-colonial societies because of this of economical and political extension and control and when the coloniser 'diluted' indigenous peoples' (the colonised) sociable tactics and assimilate those to a new interpersonal mold. In addition they further make clear that hybridity extends until following the period of imperialism when habits of immigrations from rural to metropolitan region and from other imperial areas of influence; such as Chinese language and Indian labourers to arrive into the Malay Peninsula through the labour intensive period.
However, with the finish imperialism, with the rising of immigration and monetary liberalisation, the word hybridity has profoundly been used in many different dimensions and is also one of the most disputed conditions in postcolonial studies. It can take many varieties including cultural, political and linguistics. It's important to note that hybridity can be interpreted in a number of accounts from a slight cross to the extreme of culture clash. Within the postcolonial studies the term 'crossbreed' commonly refers to 'the creation of new trans-cultural varieties within the contact zone produced by colonisation' (Ashcroft et al. , 2003). One other dimension of this term is the 'cross types converse' which is associated with the introduction of postcolonial discourse and its own critique of ethnic imperialism. (elaborate)
Easthope (1998) on the other palm asserts that in his conversations of hybridity, it does not have any fix description except in relation to non-hybridity:
that the opposition between difference and absolute presence must be relativised by bringing out more than one concept of identity, a coherent, speaking subject cannot live in the gaps between identities. (p. 347).
Pieterse (2001:221) maintains that 'New cross varieties are significant signals of profound changes that are occurring as a consequence of freedom, migration and multiculturalism'. Furthermore, social diasporization (Hall, 1990) indicates a fresh form of identity consequently of interculturality and diasporic relationships (Anthias, 2010). However, Anthias (ibid:620) postulates that:
If hybrid cultural identities are actually the quality identities of the modern world, then challenges over ethnic hegemony and the fundamental mechanisms that support it, become more and more empty signifiers; just to occupy the area of the 'hybrid' constitutes an emancipator individuals condition.
In addition, de Toro (1991, 1996a) contends that hybridity is usually inherent to culture, identity and countries but it is the thing of reflections and definitions of different options and also applied in very different fields. Correspondingly, de Toro shows that one has to understand the idea of hybridity in a broader metacontext and must see hybridity as blending systems at the base of the combination of different models and procedures.
The dialogue of hybridity in this analysis focuses on the contemporary question about culture, ethnicity and id which underpins de Toro's model of hybridity as a social category. The primary argument of this research is the problematic characteristics of managing the distinctions of social, ethnical and spiritual organizations in Malaysia's plural modern culture in the quest for the engineering of shared Malaysian identity. The debate of hybridity in the Malaysian context in this review therefore is not about getting a midway to the answer of differences in cultures and individuality but to recognize an area where cultural, religious and cultural difference can be celebrated.
In all the the arguments in the succeeding portions deal with ethnicity, culture and religion, this study will not attempt to explicate an in depth discourse of the cultural theory principle. However, ethnic theory will be researched at a surface level.
In the linguistics placing, Bakhtin (1981) puts forward the notion of linguistic hybridity. He, corresponding to Young (1995) delineates how terminology, even within an individual sentence, can be doubled-voiced. Bakhtin affirms that linguistic hybridity mixes two public dialects within the limitations of an individual utterance but differentiated by other factors of those interpersonal utterances. Simplistically, it explains the ability 'to be together the same but different' (ibid:20). Young further postulates that for Bakhtin, hybridity identifies the procedure of the authorial unmasking of another's talk, through a vocabulary that is 'double-accented' and 'double-styled'.
Bakhtin (1981) divides his linguistic hybridity into two; intentional hybridity and unconscious or organic hybridity. The former occurs whenever a voice has the ability to ironise and unmask the other within the same utterance. The organic and natural hybridity, on the other palm occurs when two dialects fused together:
. . . . the languages change historically mainly by hybridization, through a mixing of varied languages co-existing within the limitations of an individual dialect, an individual national language, an individual branch, an individual group of different branches, in the historical as well as paleontological past of dialects. (Ibid:358).
The vocabulary hybridity sensation is one of main conversations in this current analysis as the multicultural population evolves in Malaya then Malaysia respectively, languages progress in tandem. The talk involves the introduction of Malaysian British or 'Manglish' in sociable interactions of the populace within one's own cultural community or with the other neighborhoods at large. That is argued in the conversations and findings section of this current study.
The section that comes after discusses in more detail of hybridity in the light of Bhabha's (1998) focus on cultural diversity and ethnical difference.
Bhabha's conception of hybridity is developed from literary and ethnical theory by which he recognizes that the governing bodies (coloniser) convert the id of the colonised (the other) in tandem with the essentialist values. This action of 'translation' however does not produce something that is known to the coloniser or the colonised but essentially new (Papastergiadis, 1997). Bhabha believes that it's this new blurry boundaries or areas in-between subject-position that are discovered as the locality of the disruption and displacement of predominant effect of colonial narratives and cultural set ups and practice.
Bhabha (1994) remarks that the difference in ethnical techniques within different teams, however rational one is, is actually very difficult and even impossible and counterproductive, to fit together different forms of culture also to pretend that they may easily coexist. As he affirms:
The assumption that at some level all forms of cultural variety may be comprehended based on a particular widespread concept, whether 'individuals being', 'school', or 'competition', can be both very dangerous and incredibly limiting in seeking to comprehend the ways that cultural practices build their own systems of so this means and social organisation' (ibid:209)
There is real truth to a certain degree to the declaration above in terms of the universality of cultural variety applied in many pluralistic countries including Malaysia. However, to a more substantial amount, this present study, at a later level would provide the limitations of that statement amidst troubles and multitudes of problems in inter-ethnic relationship; Malaysian world has proven its capability to be one of the select few which are able to demonstrate that the distinctions in cultural tactics could be the catalyst not hindrance or counterproductive between different teams to coexist.
This concept of the third space is central and useful in analysing this current research in conditions of its 'interstitial placement' between cultural and ethnic individuality with that of an negotiated identification (shared individuality) in the Malaysian framework.
Bhabha feels that the process of social hybridity gives rise to new and unidentifiable, a fresh period of negotiation of meaning and representation. For him controversies are inescapable and unavoidable in a multicultural society as discussions happen almost in every circumstances including socio-politics and market down to minute affairs such as with classrooms framework. The implication of european colonial legacy which acquired changed ethnic ideology of the former colonised region is central to the modern discourse of negotiation and instead of questioning the legality of certain social status allocated to immigrant ethnicities, it is inevitable but to simply accept, admire and rejoice diversity in ways which are appropriately befitting the modern culture as a whole.
Post-colonial ethnic politics assertions: integration and assimilation to unification
As a result of hybridisation, prominent culture becomes diluted plus more dispersed; less built in and can then be negotiated.
The procedure for social hybridisation allows greater opportunity for local culture to be emphasised thus presents a greater probability for more people to feel the sense of owed. (Canclini, 1995;Pieterse, 2004).
Hybridity must be considered as a continuing exchange of renewals and bargain of the techniques of identity
A more analytical perspective that reviews the assumption about culture and id from us-them dualism to a collective sense of 'both'. Therefore acceptance and conciliation of both difference and similarity.
Propagating and espousing a fresh conception of shared identity
New opportunities, new challenges to build up a collective sense of identity
Identity is multiple, overlapping and context-sensitive (Kwame Appiah in Koizumi)
New conception of self 'hybrid do it yourself' rejects singular individuality and take up a fluid context-dependent identity
Classification of personality formation: 'inherited' and 'obtained' (cultural and emotional)