“We should remember that it is the inter - - the cutting edge of translation and negotiation, the inbetween space - - the carries the burden of the meaning of culture” (Bhabha 56).
Somewhere between the speaker and the addressee meaning occurs. I think that was coming from Bordieu: the assumption that what I have to say is worth hearing and that the person to whom I am speaking is worthy of hearing it. It is not only my words and my intentions that give the utterance meaning, but the person to whom I am speaking.
I believe there is “a there there,” a meaning that is the “true” meaning, although I am not sure that if it is there or not is of any real importance at all. The interpretation is of more importance than what is being interpreted. I believe how we interpret the world, whether it is there or not, occurs somewhere between what I see and what everyone else sees. In an astrophysics class as an undergraduate, the professor described how the moon only appears to revolve around the earth. In fact, the earth and moon each revolved around a common point; it was just that the point around which they both revolved was inside the earth, not the center of the earth, but inside off center somewhere, that made it appear that the moon revolved around the earth. The same was true of any stellar bodies; the one with the greater mass was closer to the center point, often encompassing the center point. This is how I see the socially-constructed interpretation of reality- - the group with the most mass, or power, is closer to the point of revolution, yet it is still not the center. We all have an influence in how the world is viewed, yet not an equal or just influence. Somewhere in this astronomical, (starry-eyed?) tangent, I think is an analogy to Bhabha’s “third space of enunciations which (he) has made the precondition for the articulation of cultural difference” (Bhabha 56). It is not the hegemonic culture, nor The Other that makes the meaning of culture but the dynamic space between the two. Each of the polarities need the other for the meaning they give themselves, yet the meaning for the whole comes about in the liminal space between the two.
3 comments:
Your comments are reminiscent of Hans-Georg Gadamer's 'Truth and Method,' the classic philosophical meditation on hermeneutics. He argued (if you are unfamiliar) that intepretation happens when the horizon of the interpreter meets the horizon of the text. At the fusion of horizons is the location of interpretation, something that surpasses both text and reader. Don't have time to write more, other than that I would love to work through this book with a book club!
So, instead of using the metaphor of a horizon, bhabha uses third space and liminal space and borders. The more I read through bhabha he simply reminds me of other writers who use different metaphors. They write in a clearer fashion as well.
I'd like to use a club on the book too. Or use the book as a club to beat myself senseless.
Let's all bring our clubs, then....
Post a Comment