Postcolonial Ambivalence and Phenomenological Ambiguity: Towards Recognizing Asian American Women's Agency

Critical Philosophy of Race 4 (1):56 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Homi Bhabha brings attention to the figure of the post-colonial metropolitan subject—a third world subject who resides in the first world. Bhabha describes the experiences of the “colonial” subject as ambivalently split. As much as I find his work insightful, I find problematic Bhabha’s descriptions of the daily life of post-colonial metropolitan subjects as split and doubled. His analysis lends only to the possibility of these splittings/doublings as schizophrenically wholly arising. His analysis cannot account for the agonistic moments when the colonial subject is caught in not knowing, and in developing understanding about present circumstances. A framework with an account of context and horizons, such as in phenomenology can better depict the experiences of the post-colonial metropolitan subject. Maurice Merleau-Ponty follows a gestaltian contact with the world, which advances that the “most basic unit of experience is that of figure-on-a-background.” One perceives the figure/theme because of and within the background/horizon. In this horizonal framework, human experiences are ambiguously open. The openness in the horizon of the gestaltian framework better accounts for the conditions Bhabha refers to as splitting. The ambivalence can be understood not simply as conundrums that defy understanding but as ambiguous moments for expanding, developing, and growing.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-09-19
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
210 ( #33,436 of 69,122 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #52,218 of 69,122 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.