|
Article Excerpt
Introduction: Native Studies in Germany
For the last century or so, for a variety of reasons, German culture has shown a great interest in the indigenous cultures of North America. Not least of all, this interest goes back to the immensely popular novels of Karl May (1842-1912) about the quintessential noble savage, the fictional Apache chief Winnetou. Unfortunately, May did not know a lot about the Apaches or any other Native culture, having never been to North America himself. Thus, a lot of stereotypes and prejudices prevail in Germany about "Indians," popular as they may be (see Lutz, Approaches). A German scholar entering the field of Native Studies has to overcome these misconceptions and do very thorough research to avoid the usual pitfalls and not be suspect of romanticism or racism.
The critical tools of postcolonial theory can help in this research. For some reason, postcolonial literatures became popular in Germany earlier than they did in the UK and have met with less resistance (see Schulze-Engler). Curiously enough, postcolonial studies in Germany are mostly concerned with the former British colonies. Germany's own colonial venture was perhaps equally bloody, the infamous Herero-massacre in Namibia, 1904, being a case in point, but comparably small and is mostly glossed over. The German government has still not issued a formal excuse to the Herero and perhaps never will. Also, of course, there is no extensive body of German postcolonial literatures. Issues of migration or cultural hybridity arise mostly around the issue of immigrants in Germany.
Turning to the former British colonies, we are in the comfortable position of the outsider: since we do not share this particular history of colonialism, we tend to be less emotional about the issue, so maybe we can be more objective. We have no quarrels with either side and are thus more likely to find support. As James Hoffman, Professor at UCC, once said to me: "You are not the enemy!"
On the other band, we are also at a serious disadvantage when talking about the indigenous cultures of the former British colonies, as for instance Native Canadians. Canada itself is a foreign country to us: we are even less familiar with its original inhabitants and thus we are double outsiders. To even understand these (for us) foreign cultures, we must invest more time and effort compared to someone who lives in the postcolonial world. We can never speak as insiders. The theoretical tools of postcolonial studies may be a way towards a responsible criticism, but we have to use them with care. Hybridity, syncretism, or similar terms that criticize notions of a pure, authentic culture are key concepts of postcolonial studies and useful in creating a critical counter-discourse, and as such they are widely used in the German academy. (1) Still, using them without scrutiny for all postcolonial literatures remains problematic and can turn into just another form of neo-colonialism. In how far these tools are appropriate for the study of Native Canadian theatre shall be examined in the following article, which concentrates on the concepts most widely used in connection with Native plays, namely hybridity and syncretism.
Postcolonial Studies, Hybridity, and Syncretism
Following Ashcroft, Tiffin and Griffiths' definition in their influential work The Empire Writes Back, the Native peoples of North America would certainly be considered postcolonial, a "culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to the present day" (2). As Klaus Losch writes, "The difference with native literature would then be that the empire that writes back is not located in a distant former colony, but in the midst of the metropolis" (Losch 65).
However, Arnold Krupat, one of the most influential non-Native critics of Native literatures, also referring to the definition mentioned above, argues that "contemporary Native American literatures cannot quite be classed among the postcolonial literatures of the world for the simple reason that there is not yet a "post-" to the colonial status of Native Americans" (Krupat 30)." (2) This may be a misinterpretation of Ashcroft, Tiffin and Griffiths's definition, as it clearly refers to "the world as it exists during and after" colonisation. Postcolonial is not meant to deny that the effects of colonialism are far from over. The post rather articulates a desire, a utopia, a work-in-progress, the struggle for a truly postcolonial, de-colonized world.
To avoid these misleading implications of the term, in Germany postcolonial literatures are mostly termed "new literatures in English." Still, the problem remains that these and related terms are subsuming a variety of very heterogeneous cultures under one heading, concentrating on the similarities and downplaying the differences. For our purposes, it is necessary to be more specific. The postcolonial world offers roughly four groups of people for consideration: (3) 1. The indigenous people of countries like India that have regained sovereignty over their own country; 2. indigenous people in settler colonies like Canada that do not rule their own country and are in the minority; 3. the descendants of the colonial immigrants; and 4. migrants, diasporic people; e.g. the inhabitants of the Caribbean and the so-called "Black British" people. (4) Because these four groups all live in vastly different circumstances, face different problems and apply different strategies to their situation, we have to treat them differently in postcolonial theory.
Especially in the case of migrants, there is a tendency to deconstruct binaries and challenge clear-cut concepts of identity and culture with concepts like hybridity, syncretism, creolization, mestizaje, transculturality, and, more recently, transdifference. (5) It is no mere accident that the only major study of hybridity in German studies focuses on German immigrant literature (see Arens). The question is whether these terms are equally applicable for the Caribbean, India or Canada. In his famous statement that also prompts the title for my paper, Salman Rushdie also refers to the migrant situation in particular:
The Satanic Verses celebrates hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation that comes of new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs. It rejoices in mongrelization and fears the absolutism of the Pure. Melange, botchpotch, a bit of this and a bit of that is how newness enters the world. It is the great possibility that mass migration gives the world, and I have tried to embrace it. The Satanic Verses is for change-by-fusion, change-by-conjoining. It is a love-song to our mongrel selves. (Rushdie 394)
Alluding to Rushdie, Homi Bhabha uses hybridity to criticize notions of an authentic, pure culture with clearly defined borders. According to him, cultures are generally impure. Differences, identities are only constructed, negotiated within the so-called "Third Space of Enunciation":
It is only when we understand that all cultural statements and systems are constructed in this contradictory and ambivalent space of enunciation, that we begin to understand why hierarchical claims to the inherent originality or "purity" of cultures are untenable, even before we resort to empirical historical instances that demonstrate their hybridity. (Bhabha 37)
More importantly, hybridity for Bhabha is also the basis for cultural change, for a utopian "international culture based not on the exoticism of multiculturalism or the diversity of cultures, but on the inscription and articulation of culture's hybridity," (38). Hybridity is "the name for the strategic reversal of the process of domination through...
|
