Homi Bhabha explains the concept of dual heritage as ‘the interstices between colliding cultures’ (www.amherst.edu, 2008) referencing a space between societies where they become a new, singular identity rather than just two overlapping contexts. This is categorized as the Third Space. This concept not only discusses the creation of a new identity based on the ‘inbetweenness’ of two categories, but also how such a space is created in the first place. There are a multitude of ways dual culture is created, with diasporas or colonialism within a community being key factors. However, even these overlap with each other because migration is often caused by colonialism which results in a forced exile of a large group of that community. This is an important aspect in Bhabha’s theory due to his referral to post-colonialist culture and the idea that the common denominator in each of these third space identities is bringing the colonizer’s and the colonised cultures together to create one. He describes the ‘creation of transcultural forms’ (Mambol, 2016) as Hybridity suggesting there is a metamorphosis of these opposing factors and that they are no longer two separate concepts. When suggesting that ‘in the very practice of domination the language of the master becomes hybrid’ (Bhabha, 1994) he begins to explore the implications of colonialism and how during the process of subjugation, the oppressor gains more power through the ownership of that culture. He may only be speaking of ‘language’ in a metaphorical sense in that it is the characteristics and the identity of a person that transforms rather that the geographical language that is exchanged, however I believe this can also be translated into the latter. His use of the word ‘master’ not only implies the literal sense of the superior and inferior as a direct reference to colonialism, but the use of this word can also be relevant in considering who holds the knowledge of these different cultures. The person who has wider access to varying cultures, and therefore languages, has more power than the person who has limited access, and therefore suffers from this. This further suggests that one who can control the accessibility and use of a specific language holds control over the dissemination of that culture or race.Homi Bhabha explains the concept of dual heritage as ‘the interstices between colliding cultures’ (www.amherst.edu, 2008) referencing a space between societies where they become a new, singular identity rather than just two overlapping contexts. This is categorized as the Third Space.

 

This concept not only discusses the creation of a new identity based on the ‘inbetweenness’ of two categories, but also how such a space is created in the first place. There are a multitude of ways dual culture is created, with diasporas or colonialism within a community being key factors. However, even these overlap with each other because migration is often caused by colonialism which results in a forced exile of a large group of that community. This is an important aspect in Bhabha’s theory due to his referral to post-colonialist culture and the idea that the common denominator in each of these third space identities is bringing the colonizer’s and the colonised cultures together to create one.

 

He describes the ‘creation of transcultural forms’ (Mambol, 2016) as Hybridity suggesting there is a metamorphosis of these opposing factors and that they are no longer two separate concepts. When suggesting that ‘in the very practice of domination the language of the master becomes hybrid’ (Bhabha, 1994) he begins to explore the implications of colonialism and how during the process of subjugation, the oppressor gains more power through the ownership of that culture. He may only be speaking of ‘language’ in a metaphorical sense in that it is the characteristics and the identity of a person that transforms rather that the geographical language that is exchanged, however I believe this can also be translated into the latter. His use of the word ‘master’ not only implies the literal sense of the superior and inferior as a direct reference to colonialism, but the use of this word can also be relevant in considering who holds the knowledge of these different cultures. The person who has wider access to varying cultures, and therefore languages, has more power than the person who has limited access, and therefore suffers from this. This further suggests that one who can control the accessibility and use of a specific language holds control over the dissemination of that culture or race.