Introduction: “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha
“Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha was first published in October (Spring 1984), 28:125-133. The essay appeared in a special issue on “Discipleship: A Special Issue on Psychoanalysis.” This seminal work has become a cornerstone of postcolonial studies, offering a nuanced and insightful analysis of the complex dynamics of colonial power and resistance. Bhabha’s exploration of mimicry, a strategy employed by colonized subjects to appropriate and subvert colonial norms, has had a profound impact on literary and cultural theory, challenging traditional notions of identity, agency, and cultural exchange.
Summary of “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha
- Ambivalence in Colonial Discourse: Homi Bhabha introduces the concept of ambivalence as a defining characteristic of colonial discourse, emphasizing that this ambivalence is not merely a sign of weakness but a deliberate strategy employed by colonial powers. According to Bhabha, colonial discourse operates on a principle of contradiction, where it simultaneously seeks to assert control over the colonized while recognizing the inherent instability of that control. This ambivalence is reflected in the colonizer’s efforts to civilize the colonized, a process that paradoxically reveals the limitations and absurdities of colonial authority. Bhabha contends that the ambivalence of colonial discourse is what makes it both effective and vulnerable, as it continually oscillates between asserting dominance and acknowledging its own flaws (Bhabha, 1984).
- Mimicry as a Strategy of Control: Bhabha argues that mimicry is a central tactic in the exercise of colonial power, functioning as a means of controlling the colonized by encouraging them to adopt the behaviors, language, and customs of the colonizer. However, this mimicry is never allowed to be complete; the colonized are permitted to be “almost the same, but not quite.” This partial assimilation serves to maintain the hierarchy between colonizer and colonized, ensuring that the colonized remain subservient while being drawn closer to the colonizer’s standards. The strategy of mimicry thus creates a space where the colonized are simultaneously included and excluded, accepted and alienated. Bhabha suggests that this process is fraught with tension, as it requires the colonizer to constantly negotiate the boundary between similarity and difference, thereby exposing the fragility of colonial authority (Bhabha, 1984).
- Mimicry and Mockery: In Bhabha’s analysis, the relationship between mimicry and mockery is crucial to understanding the dynamics of colonial power. While mimicry is intended to produce a compliant, Anglicized colonial subject, it often devolves into mockery, where the imitation becomes a caricature, exaggerating the absurdities of the colonial project. This mockery undermines the legitimacy of colonial authority by turning the tools of control—language, education, and cultural practices—into instruments of subversion. Bhabha illustrates how the colonized subject, by mimicking the colonizer, can expose the hollowness of colonial claims to superiority, thereby destabilizing the very foundations of colonial rule. The act of mimicry, therefore, becomes a double-edged sword: it reinforces colonial power while simultaneously mocking and challenging it (Bhabha, 1984).
- Double Vision and the Threat to Colonial Authority: Bhabha introduces the concept of “double vision” to describe the dual perception that arises from the process of mimicry. This double vision occurs when the colonized subject sees the world through both the lens of the colonizer and their own native perspective, creating a split in the perception of identity and authority. This split is dangerous to colonial power because it reveals the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in colonial discourse. The colonized, in mimicking the colonizer, becomes aware of the gap between the colonizer’s ideals and their actions, leading to a questioning of the legitimacy of colonial rule. Bhabha argues that this double vision is a powerful form of resistance because it disrupts the coherence of colonial authority, making it difficult for the colonizer to maintain a stable and unified sense of power (Bhabha, 1984).
- Mimicry and Identity Formation: The process of mimicry, as described by Bhabha, profoundly impacts the formation of identity for both the colonizer and the colonized. For the colonized, mimicry leads to a fractured and “partial” identity—one that is caught between two worlds and cannot fully belong to either. This “partial” presence is both a product of and a challenge to colonial discourse, as it disrupts the binary opposition between the colonizer and the colonized. Bhabha suggests that this fractured identity is a site of resistance because it refuses to conform to the rigid categories imposed by colonial power. For the colonizer, the existence of such a “partial” identity threatens the stability of their own identity, as it reveals the dependence of the colonizer’s sense of self on the subjugation of the Other. Thus, mimicry complicates identity formation by blurring the lines between self and Other, colonizer and colonized (Bhabha, 1984).
- Historical and Cultural Recontextualization: Bhabha places mimicry within the broader context of historical and cultural recontextualization, arguing that colonial discourse reinterprets and reconfigures cultural and racial identities in ways that serve the interests of colonial power. This recontextualization involves the appropriation of elements from the colonized culture, which are then repackaged and presented as part of the colonizer’s civilizing mission. However, this process is inherently unstable, as the act of recontextualization often highlights the contradictions within the colonial project. Bhabha suggests that the colonial appropriation of culture is never complete and is always accompanied by a sense of unease, as the colonized subject’s resistance to this recontextualization reveals the limits of colonial authority. The historical and cultural recontextualization in colonial discourse thus serves as both a tool of control and a potential site of resistance (Bhabha, 1984).
- Mimicry as a Form of Resistance: Despite its role in maintaining colonial control, mimicry also functions as a subtle and powerful form of resistance. Bhabha argues that the “slippage” inherent in mimicry—the difference that is “almost the same, but not quite”—creates opportunities for the colonized to subvert colonial authority. This slippage allows the colonized to engage in acts of mimicry that undermine the colonizer’s power, often by exaggerating or distorting the traits that the colonizer seeks to impose. Through this process, the colonized can expose the absurdities and contradictions of colonial rule, turning the tools of oppression into weapons of resistance. Bhabha highlights that this form of resistance is not always overt or confrontational but can be insidious and indirect, gradually eroding the authority of the colonizer from within the very structures they have created (Bhabha, 1984).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha
| Term | Definition (in the context of the essay) | Example |
| Mimicry | The act of imitating or copying another culture or identity, often with a sense of irony or subversion. | – The colonized people imitating the language, manners, and dress of the colonizers, but never being fully accepted as “English.” |
| Ambivalence | Having mixed feelings or contradictory meanings. | – Mimicry is ambivalent because it both reinforces colonial power by showing a desire to be like the colonizers, and undermines it by highlighting the impossibility of ever being fully the same. |
| Metonymy of Presence | A strategy used in colonial discourse where a part is used to represent the whole, often in a distorted or exaggerated way. | – The portrayal of the colonized as “Simian Black” or “Lying Asiatic” stereotypes, reducing them to a single, negative characteristic. |
| Interdict | Something that is forbidden or prohibited. | – Mimicry is an interdicted discourse because it exists on the border between what is allowed and what is not. The colonized are expected to imitate, but not too closely. |
| Partial Representation | The colonized are never fully represented in colonial discourse, but are always represented in a limited or distorted way. | – The portrayal of the colonized as “almost the same, but not quite” as the colonizers. |
| Disavowal | The act of denying or refusing to acknowledge something. | – Colonial discourse often disavows the possibility of the colonized ever becoming fully equal to the colonizers. |
| Castration | A metaphor used by Lacan to describe the loss of something essential, often associated with the fear of emasculation. | – Bhabha suggests that mimicry goes beyond the concept of castration by highlighting the historical and political aspects of colonial power. |
| Colonial Discourse | The language and ideas used to justify and maintain colonial power. | – The British Empire’s rhetoric about bringing civilization and progress to India and other colonies. |
| Postcolonial Studies | An academic field that examines the effects of colonialism and imperialism on societies and cultures. | – The study of how colonialism has shaped the literature, history, and politics of former colonies. |
| Orientalism | A Western way of thinking about and representing the East as inferior and exotic. | – The portrayal of India as a land of mystery and spirituality, while ignoring its complex history and culture. |
| Othering | The process of defining and categorizing people as different from oneself, often in a negative way. | – The colonial practice of portraying the colonized as “inferior” and “savage.” |
| Subaltern | A marginalized or oppressed group of people. | – The colonized people, who were often excluded from the dominant narratives of history and culture. |
| Hybridity | The mixing of different cultures or identities. | – The creation of new cultural forms and identities as a result of colonial contact. |
| Resistance | The act of opposing or fighting against a dominant power. | – The ways in which colonized people resisted colonial rule, both overtly and covertly. |
| Agency | The ability to act and make choices independently. | – The colonized people’s agency, despite their marginalized status, to shape their own identities and destinies. |
| Power Dynamics | The relationships between different groups of people in terms of power and authority. | – The power dynamics between the colonizers and the colonized, and how these relationships were maintained and challenged. |
| Cultural Appropriation | The adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture, often in a disrespectful or exploitative way. | – The use of traditional indigenous cultures for commercial purposes or entertainment without acknowledging their cultural significance. |
Contribution of “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha to Literary Theory/Theories
- Introduction of Ambivalence in Colonial Discourse: Bhabha’s concept of ambivalence is a cornerstone of Postcolonial Theory. He argues that colonial discourse is marked by a deep-seated ambivalence, wherein the colonizer seeks to make the colonized subject mimic the colonizer’s culture, but only to a degree that reinforces colonial dominance. This idea challenges the binary oppositions of colonizer/colonized and self/Other, revealing the complexities of identity in colonial contexts (Bhabha, 1984).
- Mimicry as a Site of Resistance: Bhabha’s exploration of mimicry as a form of both compliance and subversion adds depth to postcolonial critiques of power. By showing how mimicry can expose the inconsistencies and contradictions in colonial authority, Bhabha provides a framework for understanding how colonized subjects navigate and resist colonial power structures (Bhabha, 1984).
- Critique of Colonial Representation: Bhabha’s essay critiques the way colonial discourse constructs the colonized subject as “almost the same, but not quite.” This critique is crucial for Postcolonial Theory as it highlights the limitations of colonial representations and the ways in which these representations are resisted through mimicry and mockery (Bhabha, 1984).
- Mimicry and the Unconscious: Bhabha draws on psychoanalytic concepts, particularly the idea of the “uncanny,” to describe the unsettling effect of mimicry. He argues that mimicry produces a “double vision,” where the colonized subject becomes a site of both recognition and disavowal, revealing the unconscious anxieties of the colonizer. This aligns with Freudian concepts of repression and the return of the repressed, where the colonizer’s attempt to control the Other is undermined by the unconscious emergence of what has been repressed (Bhabha, 1984).
- Colonial Desire and the “Partial Presence”: Bhabha introduces the idea of “partial presence,” where the colonized subject is never fully recognized or accepted by the colonizer, reflecting a fundamental split in the colonial subject’s identity. This concept draws on psychoanalytic ideas of desire and lack, suggesting that colonial authority is destabilized by its inability to fully possess or control the colonized subject, much like the psychoanalytic subject is destabilized by unfulfilled desire (Bhabha, 1984).
- Subversion of Binary Oppositions: Bhabha’s analysis deconstructs the binary oppositions that underpin colonial discourse, such as colonizer/colonized, self/Other, and center/periphery. He shows how these binaries are destabilized by the ambivalence of mimicry, which both reinforces and undermines the distinctions between these categories. This aligns with Derridean deconstruction, which seeks to expose the inherent contradictions within binary oppositions (Bhabha, 1984).
- Mimicry as a Disruptive Force: Bhabha’s concept of mimicry functions as a form of différance, where the meaning and authority of colonial discourse are deferred and displaced by the act of imitation. The colonized subject’s mimicry of the colonizer introduces slippages and excesses that disrupt the coherence of colonial discourse, echoing Derrida’s idea that meaning is always deferred and never fully present (Bhabha, 1984).
4. Cultural Theory
- Hybridity and Cultural Identity: Bhabha’s essay is foundational in the development of the concept of cultural hybridity, where the identities of the colonizer and the colonized are seen as fluid and interdependent rather than fixed and oppositional. This idea has influenced Cultural Theory by challenging essentialist notions of identity and highlighting the hybrid nature of cultural identity in postcolonial contexts (Bhabha, 1984).
- The Performative Nature of Identity: Bhabha’s analysis of mimicry as a performance that both conforms to and subverts colonial expectations contributes to the understanding of identity as performative. This resonates with later theories, such as Judith Butler’s concept of performativity, by showing how identity is not innate but is constructed through repeated actions and representations (Bhabha, 1984).
5. Literary Criticism
- Reinterpretation of Canonical Texts: Bhabha’s theories provide a lens for reinterpreting colonial and postcolonial literature. His concepts of mimicry and ambivalence allow critics to explore how colonial texts both assert and undermine colonial authority, offering new insights into the works of writers like Joseph Conrad, Rudyard Kipling, and V.S. Naipaul (Bhabha, 1984).
- Impact on Narrative Structures: Bhabha’s work has influenced the analysis of narrative structures in literature, particularly in how narratives of colonialism are constructed and deconstructed. His insights into the ambivalence of colonial discourse encourage a reading of colonial literature that is attuned to the ways in which narratives of power are both constructed and contested (Bhabha, 1984).
Examples of Critiques Through “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha
| Literary Work | Critique (in the light of Bhabha’s theoretical perspective) |
| Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad | Conrad’s novel critiques the destructive nature of colonialism through the character of Kurtz, who becomes corrupted by his power and greed in the Congo. Bhabha’s concept of mimicry can be applied to Kurtz’s adoption of African customs and language, which is ultimately a superficial and exploitative form of cultural appropriation. Kurtz’s descent into madness and savagery reflects the destructive consequences of colonial power and the loss of humanity associated with it. |
| The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling | Kipling’s stories romanticize colonial India and present it as a place of adventure and wonder. Bhabha would argue that this portrayal reinforces colonial stereotypes and obscures the realities of colonial exploitation. The characters in The Jungle Book are often presented as exotic and primitive, reinforcing the Orientalist notion of the East as inferior. |
| The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver | Kingsolver’s novel critiques the missionary movement and its impact on the people of the Congo. Bhabha’s concept of mimicry can be applied to the missionaries’ attempts to impose their own culture and religion on the Congolese people. The missionaries’ efforts to “civilize” the Congolese are ultimately doomed to failure, as they are unable to truly understand or appreciate Congolese culture. |
| The Mimic Men by V.S. Naipaul | Naipaul’s novel explores the experiences of colonial subjects who try to assimilate into Western culture. Bhabha’s concept of mimicry is central to the novel, as the characters struggle to reconcile their colonial identities with their desire to be “modern.” The characters in The Mimic Men are often forced to abandon their cultural heritage in order to succeed in the colonial world. This can lead to a sense of alienation and loss of identity. |
Criticism Against “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha
1. Overemphasis on Mimicry: Some critics argue that Bhabha’s focus on mimicry is too narrow and fails to account for the diverse ways in which colonized subjects have resisted colonial power. They contend that Bhabha’s analysis oversimplifies the complexities of colonial relationships and overlooks other forms of resistance, such as open rebellion and cultural preservation.
2. Neglect of Material Conditions: Critics have also pointed out that Bhabha’s focus on discourse and representation may neglect the material conditions that shape colonial power relations. They argue that economic factors, political structures, and social hierarchies play a crucial role in determining the experiences of colonized subjects and cannot be reduced solely to linguistic and cultural dynamics.
3. Essentialism: Some critics have accused Bhabha of essentialism, particularly in his use of the concept of “the colonial subject.” They argue that this concept implies a fixed and homogeneous identity for all colonized people, ignoring the diversity of experiences and perspectives within colonized communities.
4. Lack of Historical Specificity: Bhabha’s analysis is often criticized for being too abstract and lacking historical specificity. Critics argue that his focus on general concepts and theoretical frameworks may obscure the unique and context-specific experiences of different colonized societies.
5. Overreliance on Psychoanalysis: Bhabha’s use of psychoanalytic concepts, such as the “unconscious” and “desire,” has been questioned by some critics. They argue that psychoanalysis may not be the most appropriate tool for understanding the complexities of colonial power relations, and that it can lead to a focus on individual psychology rather than broader social and historical factors.
Suggested Readings: “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha
- Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994.
https://www.routledge.com/The-Location-of-Culture/Bhabha/p/book/9780415336390 - Young, Robert J. C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.
https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Postcolonialism:+An+Historical+Introduction-p-9781405100852 - Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures. Routledge, 1989.
https://www.routledge.com/The-Empire-Writes-Back-Theory-and-Practice-in-Post-Colonial-Literatures/Ashcroft-Griffiths-Tiffin/p/book/9780415012089 - Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard University Press, 1999.
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674177642 - Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Charles Lam Markmann, Grove Press, 1967.
https://groveatlantic.com/book/black-skin-white-masks/ - Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/555607/orientalism-by-edward-w-said/ - Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2015.
https://www.routledge.com/ColonialismPostcolonialism-3rd-Edition/Loomba/p/book/9780415350648 - Bhabha, Homi K. Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse. October, vol. 28, 1984, pp. 125-133.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/778467 - Moore-Gilbert, Bart. Postcolonial Theory: Contexts, Practices, Politics. Verso, 1997.
https://www.versobooks.com/books/1068-postcolonial-theory - Childs, Peter, and R. J. Patrick Williams. An Introduction to Post-Colonial Theory. Prentice Hall, 1997.
https://www.routledge.com/An-Introduction-to-Post-Colonial-Theory/Childs-Williams/p/book/9780132329191
Representative Quotations from “Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse” by Homi K. Bhabha with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Mimicry is the desire for a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite.” | This quotation captures the essence of mimicry in colonial discourse, where the colonizer desires the colonized to imitate them but in a way that maintains their superiority. |
| “The effect of mimicry is camouflage… it is not a question of harmonizing with the background, but against a mottled background, of becoming mottled.” | Bhabha uses the metaphor of camouflage to describe how mimicry allows the colonized to blend in with the colonizer’s culture while still retaining their distinct identity. |
| “Mimicry emerges as the representation of a difference that is itself a process of disavowal.” | Mimicry creates a difference between the colonizer and the colonized that is denied or disavowed by the colonizer, yet it still shapes the relationship between them. |
| “The menace of mimicry is its double vision which in disclosing the ambivalence of colonial discourse also disrupts its authority.” | Mimicry is dangerous to colonial power because it exposes the contradictions and ambivalence in colonial discourse, undermining the colonizer’s authority. |
| “The discourse of mimicry is constructed around an ambivalence; in order to be effective, mimicry must continually produce its slippage, its excess, its difference.” | The ambivalence in mimicry lies in its need to maintain a difference between the colonizer and the colonized, creating an ongoing tension within colonial discourse. |
| “To be Anglicized is emphatically not to be English.” | This quotation highlights the inherent limitation of mimicry: the colonized can imitate the colonizer’s culture, but they will never fully belong to it or be accepted as equals. |
| “Mimicry repeats rather than re-presents, and in that diminishing perspective emerges the threat of a slight difference.” | Mimicry involves repetition rather than faithful representation, and this subtle difference poses a threat to the colonizer’s control and power. |
| “The desire to emerge as ‘authentic’ through mimicry… is the final irony of partial representation.” | The colonized subject’s attempt to become authentic through mimicry is ironic because it results in only a partial, incomplete representation of identity. |
| “Mimicry conceals no presence or identity behind its mask.” | Mimicry does not hide a true self behind a facade; instead, it reveals the constructed nature of identity in the colonial context. |
| “In mimicry, the representation of identity and meaning is rearticulated along the axis of metonymy.” | Bhabha explains that mimicry reshapes identity and meaning by emphasizing partial, fragmented representations rather than complete or whole identities. |