The Location of Culture

Part 2 of The Location of Culture delves deeper into specific concepts and examples of colonial discourse to further Bhabha’s arguments about The Negotiation of Cultural Identity and Hybridity. Chapter 4 explores the complex dynamics of mimicry in the colonial context, with Bhabha positing that mimicry is not simply an act of imitation, but a subversive act that destabilizes colonial authority and exposes its ambivalence (See: Index of Terms). Colonized subjects mimic colonial traditions and habits, but they do so with subtle yet significant differences. 

The imitation of the colonized subject is always “imperfect,” which undercuts the colonizer’s claims to authority and exposes the limits of their power, since colonial power relies on the idea of cultural purity and superiority. Mimicry thus creates an ambivalent space where the colonized subject both participates in, and challenges, the cultural norms of colonialism, which Bhabha suggests is key to understanding the destabilizing effects of mimicry. Mimicry also demonstrates the ambivalence inherent in colonial imposition of cultural practices on the colonized. The colonizer—for instance, the English—imposes language, religion, and other cultural practices, but even when the colonized accept these practices and mimic them, they are considered “Anglicized” but not fully “English.”

Bhabha also explores the psychological and political dimensions of mimicry. The colonizer perceives mimicry as a tool for control and assimilation, but they are also confronted with the unsettling reality that mimicry is not a simple submission to colonial authority. It instead reveals the inadequacy and contradictions of colonial rule. Mimicry allows the colonized subject to engage with colonial discourse, but in a way that is always partial, opening up space for resistance.

Bhabha continues to explore the subtle, strategic acts of resistance practiced by colonized peoples through the concept of “sly civility.” The term encapsulates the process by which the colonized respond to colonial authority with tactical compliance, or a performance of civility that conceals deeper intentions. Bhabha demonstrates the ways that colonized peoples resist colonial power by playing along with colonial expectations rather than engaging in full-fledged rebellion. By outwardly conforming to colonial authority while subverting it from within, the colonized retain agency and challenge the colonizer’s claim to control. 

The term “sly” implies deception and an awareness of the power structures at play in the colonial world, including a calculated manipulation of those structures. Bhabha continues to address the ambivalence of colonial authority through exploring the uncertainty and contradictions inherent in colonial relationships. Colonial discourse is marked by tension, inconsistency, and complexity, which sly civility highlights and complicates through its subtle resistance. Sly civility equates to subversion through performance, demonstrating the power of concealed resistance.

In Chapter 6, Bhabha analyzes colonial power relations and continues to connect them to the concept of ambivalence. In his account of the 1817 encounter between the British East India Company and Indian subjects, Bhabha uses the British officials’ misinterpretation of Indian subjects’ political gestures and cultural practices to demonstrate how attempts to assert control over colonial subjects become fraught with ambiguity and misreading, reflecting the deeper tensions and contradictions of colonial encounters more broadly. The ambivalent (contradictory) feelings of colonizer and colonized become clear in this interaction. When the British are confronted with an act they cannot fully understand or control and interpret it as a sign of submission, Bhabha argues that the Indian subjects’ acts are actually forms of covert resistance. He also argues that when the colonial power fails to interpret the behavior and identity of the colonized accurately, they lose part of their authority. 

Irony plays a crucial role in Bhabha’s argument, especially in his discussion of mimicry. Although mimicry seems like a form of submission, it also exposes the absurdities of colonial power. Mimicry is ironic in nature because the more the colonized subject mimics the colonizer, the more they reveal the contradictions in the colonizer’s own identity. This destabilizes the colonizer’s authority and creates space for new forms of identity. He thus uses mimicry to illustrate how colonial authority is imitated and then distorted to undermine its power.