Introduction

Construction of Identity in Northern Irish Novels 237
describes the latter term as something “which is at once an object of desire and
derision, an articulation of difference contained within the fantasy of origin and
identity” (Bhabha 1994, 67). To come back to the comparison with tourism one
can see that “desire and derision” can be found there, too. How often do people
take a trip abroad to still their desire to see breathtaking features of nature, colourful
birds and strange animals, different people and unique customs just to come
home and feel vaguely disappointed by some aspects that are just so different
from the well-known that one would never want to live like that. Derision might
be a bit too harsh a word in this case, but I think the point becomes clear. The
unknown is ever so often accompanied by mistrust and disapproval.
Colonialism was partly justified by this so-called Other. “The objective of colonial
discourse is to construe the colonized as a population of degenerate types
on the basis of racial origin, in order to justify conquest and to establish systems
of administration and instruction” argues Bhabha (1994, 70). Only the deconstruction
of the colonised into uncivilised and uncultivated savages justifies the occupation
of their land. Yet, the other is not completely unknown. The aim of imperialist
invaders was to mould the unfinished subject into a less perfect imitation. The
product was something which was “at once an ‘Other’ and yet entirely knowable
and visible (ibid. 70ff). In this context Bhabha also speaks of a concept of “fixity”
which he explains to be a sign of cultural, historical and racial difference. In connection
with postcolonialism “it connotes rigidity and an unchanging order as well
as disorder, degeneracy and daemonic repetition” (ibid. 66). The stereotype then,
according to Bhabha, serves as a means of strategy. “It is a form of knowledge
and identification that vacillates between what is always ‘in place’, already known,
and something that must be anxiously repeated” (ibid. 66). Nevertheless the
stereotype remains to be an untrue depiction of what is real, thereby denying difference
(ibid. 75). For Bhabha the stereotype is also closely linked to fetishism.
“The recognition of sexual difference […] is disavowed by the fixation on an object
that masks that difference and restores an original presence” (ibid. 74). Fetishism
thus is a balancing act between similarity and the fear of difference, to put it
simple. Bhabha’s key words here are metaphor, the masking act, and metonymy,
the lack of sameness. The fetish itself masks its difference in order to achieve a
pure origin. Bhabha is referring to Fanon when he argues that this disavowal of
difference can lead to severe consequences of “grotesque mimicry”, which in turn
threatens to destroy the colonised subject (ibid. 75). To complete the picture
Bhabha is talking about the Imaginary:
The imaginary is the transformation that takes place in the subject at the
formative mirror phase, when it assumes a discrete image which allows it to
postulate a series of equivalences, samenesses, identities, between the objects
of the surrounding world. However, this positioning is itself problematic,
for the subject finds or recognizes itself through an image which is simultaneously
alienating and hence potentially confrontational. This is the