Post-colonial Hybridity and the Space of Cultural Enunciation

"The act of migration puts into crisis everything about the migrating individual or group, everything about the identity and self hood and culture and belief. How does newness enter the world?" (Joseph Anton 72)  
-----Salman Rushdie

As I am reading Rushdie's memoirs, Joseph Anton, I can't help coming back to this idea of migration, one in which Rushdie categorizes as a time of change between culture and self hood.  Because if one looks at it a certain way, colonial expansion can be seen as a mass movement or migration throughout a world that was suddenly not just one dimensional. Instead new frontiers and places were discovered.  Thus out of a mass migration this notion of East/West was created that established a very rigid colonial binary of self/other.  Because of migration and the blending of cultures and societies this static binary became more flaccid and flexible allowing room for exploration of the self and the other culture coming into contact with that self. 

Last week I focused on the poco concept of mimicry.   One can not describe mimicry without also understanding the post-colonial phenomenon of hybridity--two terms that Homi Bhabha intricately links together.  

So let's begin to decipher what hybridity is, using what know about mimicry. 

If mimicry is the act of, shall we say mockery and or camouflage to be accepted by what was considered the superior culture, then hybridity can best be understood in terms of the change that takes place in one's identity--whether it be the colonized or the colonizer--when certain contact zones are breached and or transversed during colonial expansion.  In other words the colonized or colonizer become something new or other in which two cultures and identities are fused together.
In order to understand post-colonial hybridity it is important to first understand the idea of space--specifically colonial space.   This space is where "Bhabha contends that all culture statements and systems are constructed...the "Third Space of enunciation" (Key Concepts in Poco Studies 118).  To get to this "space of enunciation" the colonized or the colonizer must first pass through what Bhabha calls a liminal space, or a space of transculturalism.   Mimicry therefore can be considered the first step in the creation of hybridity because it is the first act of crossing through a liminal space into the space of enunciation.   But once this liminal space or threshold has been crossed the colonized and colonizer are changed for ever.

Thus a great change takes place that has many different consequences when it comes to the concept of hybridity.  But we must remember that hybridity begins when newness enters the colonial world. 

So what type of changes take place, and what are the different implications of becoming a post-colonial hybrid?

To understand this question it is best again to take a look at Tsitsi Dangarembga's novel Nervous Conditions.  Within the novel there are three different types of hybridity/hybrid experiences that correlate to specific characters, and they offer a perspective into what types of hybrids exists and the challenges that face cultural hybrids.


The first cultural hybrid that exists within the novel is Maiguru.   Maiguru is an example of a cultural hybrid who has crossed the liminal threshold and was able to reach a space of cultural enunciation, only to make the return journey across the threshold to remain stuck in her original cultural space.   This can be understood through a very important conversation that takes place between Maiguru and Tambu.  Tambu discovers that Maiguru studied and received a Bachelor's degree when she was in England.   Maiguru makes the statement that "What it is to have to choose between self and security" ( Nervous Conditions 101).  Maiguru gets a glimpse of freedom when she crosses culture spaces.  However, because she is a woman she is still controlled by the patriarchy of her original culture and can not truly be her free self.  Instead she chooses the security of her own culture, security in the fact that she must always live under the rule of a man.  Thus she is not a true hybrid even though she has been changed.   In one part of the novel she embraces hybridity by leaving Babamukuru, but she comes back proving that cultural hybridity is a space in which Maiguru can not occupy. 

The second example of a cultural hybrid who can survive within a space of hybridity is Tambu.  She can understand the flaws of both cultures and is able to transverse between two different cultural spaces.  Eventually she embraces the idea of cultural hybridity when she decides to leave for the Sacred Heart mission.   She values education--something associated with the European colonizer--because she sees it as away to over come the patriarchy of her culture, a patriarchy in which women are demeaned and and controlled.   Tambu becomes a hybrid and uses it as weapon against both the Europeans and the controlling men of her society.  She says "something in my mind began to assert itself, to question things and refuse to be brainwashed, bringing me to this time when I can set down this story. It was a long and painful process for me, that process of expansion. It was a process whose events stretched over many years and would fill another volume, but the story I have told here, is my own story, the story of four women whom I loved, and our men, this story is how it all began" (Nervous Conditions 204).   This "expansion" she describes is synonymous with the great migration because she understands the fact that her family as forever been changed.

The final person who is a cultural hybrid and asserts it every chance she gets is Nyasha.  However, Nyasha represents the destruction that faces the hybrids who are stuck between two cultural spaces unable to achieve full hybridity, rejected by both cultures.   This can best be understood by the fact that Nyasha has a complete break down and eventually suffers body issues, such as anorexia because of the taxation of dealing with two cultures that are constantly contesting her self-identity.    In her break down Nyasha declares "Why do they do it...to me and to you and to him? Do you see what they've done? They've deprived you of you, him of him, ourselves of each other....They've trapped us....I'm not one of them but I'm not one of you" (Nervous Conditions 200-203).    Thus Nyasha sees destruction in the concept of hybridity and the swapping of cultures.  She is forever doomed to be stuck in a space of cultural enunciation, unable to be one or shall we say the other.   She doesn't become the new cultural hybrid because she is unable to truly understand herself. 


As you can see cultural hybridity can effect the colonized in a variety of different ways.  Some it has little influence on, like the passive Maiguru.  Some it has a great influence on, like the extremely perceptive Tambu who can survive in the future through hybridity because of  a colonial past.  And sometimes hybridity can serve as a means of entrapment, like Nyasha who can never leave the space of cultural enunciation.   Overall hybridity suggests that once the "great migration" began, the world was changed for ever and East and West were constantly forced to view each other in terms of cultural enunciation and newness.   A cultural crisis entered the world through hybridity. 

Mimicry and Re-Mimicry, Becoming Other

Imagine living between the spaces of reality and fantasy. Imagine giving up all that you have known: your life experiences, your family, your identity, your language, your dreams, your culture, the very fiber of your being. Who you are and what you want suddenly become your defining factors. Suddenly you find yourself floating in a world of borders and spaces--always on the margins of reality, slowly losing yourself and becoming consumed by fantasy and fetish. You are something other, twisted left and right between what you consciously desire, yet at the same time consciously despise. Imagine this other you, trapped within a body that is not your own. Always performing, covered by a cultural facade, a mask of terror and domination. Underneath your alien exterior your reality is scratching to get out, but it must never show, for if it does you lose the control you have so carefully constructed, so carefully manipulated. YOU MUST keep that part of yourself locked away and embrace the reality of mimicry and otherness.

Scary isn't it?

I know because I have been there, I have faced the horrors of mimicry--albeit not in a post-colonial society. It's not the easiest to identify as gay when you live in a society that define itself as strictly heterosexual. Growing up I was forced to live between the spaces of fantasy and reality. I "pretended" being straight, even though I consciously detested the idea of maintaining a heterosexual facade. I acted the part of the dominant male heterosexual. I was living in a reality that was truly a fantasy, dictated by spaces and borders. Always on the outside looking in. I loathed my best friend who identified as gay, and always taunted him for not being what society said he was "supposed" to be. Jealousy consumed me. How dare he be what I so desperately wanted to be! How dare he perform the role that I so consciously desired. How dare he open a space that challenged all normal societal conventions that dictated my everyday life. HOW dare he !!?!?!?!?!?

Alas, I digress, but what does all this have to do with post-colonial theory?

I didn't know then, but what I was dealing with was mimicry--specifically the ambivalence of mimicry. Even though I myself wasn't a product of colonization the idea and concept still carries over into what I was dealing with socially and culturally. It was a result of hegemonic forces; the ideal of being superior by modeling yourself according to what is considered superior.

Mimicry is another concept, like language and nation, that is of utmost importance when it comes to post-colonial theory studies. The thought of never being able to have an identity that is uniquely your own is a challenge that every colonized person must face. It deals with the physical results that arise from colonization, the process of becoming something other--the result is an imbalance that can never fully be filled in both the colonizer and the colonized. Yet underneath this imbalance, is a power structure that has worked long and hard to keep the colonizers in power and the colonized subdued.

In order to understand the ambivalence of mimicry, I think it's best to start with a truly esteemed post-colonial theorist who illuminates this powerful concept in ways that are truly intellectual and groundbreaking--Mr. Homi Bhabha.

Let's get down to business in tackling this tricky theoretical concept by understanding Bhabha's definition of mimicry. Bhabha defines mimicry as "the desire for a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite...constructed around an ambivalence; in order to be effective, mimicry must continually produce its slippage, its excess, its difference" ("Of Mimicry and Man" Postcolonialisms 266). In other words the colonized works on creating a new identity modeled off of the colonizer. The indigenous becomes the gentile European. However the indigenous can never fully become the European, because mimicry is a constant balancing act, a back and forth; a slippage between fetish, fantasy, and desire. The colonized must become harbingers of what Bhabha terms the "duality" of mimicry. This duality is what Bhabha calls "the menace of mimicry, its double vision" (Postcolonialsms 268). It is within this duality that the colonized understand the meaning of authority, and begins to shape it, twist and distort so that it no longer exist. The colonized understand themselves as human, so that the otherness that "deauthorizes them" enables them to become that which they desire (271). In other words the colonized is able to understand himself in terms of the otherness that defines them. It would seem that Bhabha is trying to articulate the fact that the colonial gaze is flipped on its head and the colonized is able to understand the flaws and imperfections of the colonizer.

That's a lot to take in, but what Bhabha fails to mention is what happens when the "mimickers" become the "mimicked." What happens when the colonized become the true representations of Other?  Meaning, they may not acknowledge themselves as either European or indigenous because they have become enmeshed between the two. Bhabha calls these people hybrids, which is a topic I will discuss next week because this post is strictly based on mimicry and its effect on the colonial space. I think it is within this idea of re-mimicry where colonial authority can truly be challenged and understood for its flawed superiority. It is within this conception of re-mimicry that the flaw of colonial discourse and authority can be understood.

In order to understand how the "mimickers" become the "mimicked" it is best to take look at a piece of post-colonial literature that exemplifies this idea of re-mimicry--to do that its vital to take a look at Tsitsi Dangarembga's Nervous Conditions. The passage that contains this idea of re-mimicry is Chapter 5 where Tambu begins to experience the life of the "colonized" with her Aunt, Uncle, and cousin Nyasha. The relationship that develops between Tambu and her cousin Nyasha is what Tambu calls "my first love-affair, the first time that I grew to be fond of someone of whom I did not wholeheartedly approve" (78). So what causes Tambu's disapproval of her cousin Nyasha, and why is Tambu constantly at odds with the way she feels about Nyasha? The answer is simple, Nyasha is the true representation of hybridity, she has become the colonized "Other." She even admits to Tambu that her parents "are stuck with hybrids for children...[and that she] offends them" (72). Tambu herself becomes entangled within the balancing act of mimicry or in her case re-mimicry--however Tambu is able to soften the blow that mimicry has dealt Nyasha and prevent herself from becoming to colonized.

There a two examples within Chapter 5 where this notion of re-mimicry can be discerned.

The first passage is where Tambu has dinner with her new family. The conversation that ensues is one of mimicking and re-mimicking. For example the conversation that takes place is:

'Good evening, Baba,' Maiguru greeted him in Shona. (Mimic of Native)

'Good evening Daddy,' Nyasha greeted in English. (Mimic of Colonial)

'Good evening, Babamukuru I said mixing the two languages... (Re-mimicry)

'How has the day been?' Maiguru asked in English. (Mimic of Colonial)

'Have you spent the day well?' Nyasha asked in Shona. (Mimic of Native)

'Have you spent the day well, Babamukuru?' I repeated. (80) (Re-mimicry)

As you can see I have highlighted the dual coding of mimicry and remimicry. Language and culture are so thoroughly mixed up and each of the three women has a turn at mimicry, but ever present is Tambu's constant act of re-mimicry. She is unsure of which to be, the indigenous or the colonized, and because she sees the flaws within her cousins disrespectful and inappropriate behavior she is unable to fully mimic and become the hybrid Nyasha has become, even though she herself is always mixed between.

The final passage I would like to examine in order to better understand this other form of mimicry or re-mimicry is on pg 92 where Tambu is first introduced to the mission school.

Tambu says that:

We set off for school, dressed in identical blue gym-slips, socks and shoes, carrying identical briefcases. To look at us you would have thought we were sisters, which is how I would have arranged matters had I been consulted. I strutted along beside my thoroughbred cousin, imitating her walk and the set of her head so that everyone would see that we were a unit. Thus began my period of reincarnation" ( Dangaremga 92).

Yes Tambu was being reincarnated yet she was also re-mimicking what her colonized cousin was. She desired to be the way her cousin was because of the power in which she saw her cousin held, her superiority over others. A superiority which made the other girls hate Nyasha, and made Nyasha and her father constantly at adds as to who was in control. However, Tambu objectifies her cousin Nyasha and desires to become the thing which is constantly mimicked. She becomes the re-mimicked.

As one can see, mimicry is a powerful and rather tricky concept to understand, and I think this idea of re-mimicry is one that can be understood in terms of hybridity--which is a different concept for a different post. It can result in a blending of two cultures and creates what I shall try to understand within my post next week--the concept of hybridity and how one truly becomes the colonized Other. In the mean time I hope I have shed some light on what mimicry means and its place in post-colonial theory.

All Mixed Up: A Linguistic Kerfuffle

Language. Such a wonderful word to say, but not a wonderful word to understand.  Language is the root of all cultures and civilizations, and as difficult as it is to understand notions of nation it is even harder to understand the complexities that arise when two nations, or in this case languages, come into contact.  A change takes place that can never be undone.  When it comes to post-colonial societies language barriers have been taken down, reconstructed, appropriated, re-appropriated, and twisted beyond recognition.

This results in multiple difficulties and challenges that the post-colonial society must face when it comes to defining one's self in relation to one's language.  The linguist Johann Gottfried Herder once proposed the concept that "a particular language is the core of a particular Volk, a people or ethnic group, and to mix language is to lose one's core" (Doris Summer "Language, Culture, and Society" 5).  It can be inferred that what Herder meant was that language is connected directly to one's being, one's soul--a "soul" language if you will.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that the major argument, when it comes to understanding and resolving colonialism and its effect on the indigenous language, is whether the colonized should maintain a linguistic purity by rejecting change and all those that have been consumed by it, or accept the changes that have taken place by rebuilding a new post-colonial hybrid culture where both languages are embraced or even manipulated for the sake of authenticity.  WOW, what a mouthful!!!
As a p.c. scholar, this argument is one of great importance, and an argument that one must be comfortable facing.  Thus, a linguistic kerfuffle exist within the post-colonial world of studies, as well as the post-colonial societies of the world.  How does one go about understanding such a problem? Why choose purity over diversity, diversity over purity? For the sake of what and whom? Why bother which such a mindbogglingly confusing question?

Question: How does a p.c. scholar go about solving or understanding such a linguistic kerfuffle? 
Answer: Simply by understanding both sides of the argument.

Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong'o in his scholarly journal article The Language of African Literature provides his own specific answer to this intrinsic and monumental post-colonial argument.  Thiong'o takes the side of linguistic purity for the sake of creating true "African" literature.  Thiong'o's argument is that when colonization had taken place in Africa "English became more than a language, it was the language, and all others had to bow before it in deference" (149).  Here, Thiong'o describes the hierarchy that was created when Africans and Europeans first came into contact--a hierarchy of binaries.  Submission and appropriation.  Master language and indigenous language.  One language was therefore destined to become inferior, and in this case English became the master and all others became subservient.  This is important because Thiong'o also states that "Language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture..[and that it]..is [an] expression of a relation between human beings and it is specifically human" (151).   In order to establish control Europeans understood that they must infiltrate the very core of the indigenous people, so Thiong'o is simply showing the way his language was deconstructed and appropriated so that he and his people were forced to give themselves over to other forms of foreign communication. The colonized become less then human if language is so deeply connected to being human.  Thus "domination was the mental universe of the colonized, the control, through culture" (153).   Thiong'o best summarizes this act of control and its effect as "colonial alienation" and such control has "disastrous" consequences on the colonized (154-155).   Because of the deconstruction of their culture through language a division took place between fellow colonized--those who embraced English turned on their own indigenous culture and became what Thiong'o calls elitist "petty-bourgeoisie" (159).  Thiong'o's purpose for highlighting these negative consequences of colonization is the simple fact that the English language is, in his eyes, an oppressive force. To Thiong'o, the English language represents a hegemonic force that has usurped the African experience and the African aesthetic.   So it would seem that Thiong'o's answer to the pc linguistic kerfuffle is that the only way to free one's self  from colonial control is through one's soul language.  It would also seem that to Thiong'o that those who do write in the language of the colonizer are some how tainted, unable and unworthy to call their work true African literature.

Thiong'o champions linguistic purity, but let's take a look at the other side of the argument. Salman Rushdie in his scholarly journal article "'Commonwealth Literature' Does Not Exist" offers another answer to the pc linguistic kerfuffle. Rushdie thinks the type of anti-colonial sentiment that Thiong'o embraces is not necessary when it comes to the English language (64).  Instead Rushdie views the English language as progress or as a means to create progress.  Colonialism has taken place, and Rushdie makes the valid point that "English has become the world language" (64). There is no point in dwelling in the past.  As such there is also no point in rejecting it because "those peoples who were once colonized by the language are now rapidly remaking, domesticating it, becoming more and more relaxed about the way they use it--assisted by the English language's enormous flexibility and size, they are carving out large territories for themselves within its frontiers" (64).    Rushdie envisions a re-appropriation in which the colonized reverse the control that has taken place.  He sees the manipulation of the English language as a means to decolonize; the subservient become the masters and the masters become the subservient.  A reversal of roles.  The most important part of Rushdie's argument is linguistic hybridity.  Although he does not use the term hybridity Rushdie uses the word eclectic which is what he calls the "ability to take from the world what seems fitting and to leave the rest, has always been a hallmark of the Indian tradition, and today it is at the center of the best work being done both in the visual arts and in literature" (67). Beautiful prose!   However, he also notes that the "reality of the mixed [or eclectic  tradition is replaced by the fantasy of the purity" that some how the only way forward is through dwelling in the past mistakes of the colonizer(67).    Finally, commonality is what should unite all forms of English literature; just because a writer may not be from Britain or America does not mean that they should be considered "Commonwealth" writers, as he puts it "The English language ceased to be the sole possession of the English some time ago" (70).

Two extremely different answers to this linguistic kerfuffle, but only one truly provides a positive and inclusive  answer.  Rushdie argues that there should be harmony and that English is surely a possession had by all people of the world.   Thiong'o is correct in feeling the way he does about the English language because he sees the destruction of a truly unique culture, his culture by the hands of English.

But how can you truly show the colonizers what they have done if they are unable to understand you? Because as we all know to well, English has become, as Rushdie puts it the "comfortable" means of communication.  How can you reject and exclude those who are products of cultural contact? Linguistic contact hybrids.   Linguistic purity rejects those who are different through linguistic control, just as colonization did so many years ago.  Personally I agree with Rushdie, that English studies and literature should operate on the process of inclusion and not exclusion because at the basis of language is communication, as Thiongo puts it, language and communication are synonymous and are what make us human.  It doesn't matter what language one speaks, what matters is that we speak at all.

Notions of Nation: Fanon, Césaire, Anderson And Jameson

Nationalism, it would seem, is a loaded term, but one that has a prominent place within the field of post-colonial studies.   Controversy surrounds this somewhat "mythical" term, but is it really all that mythical? We live in a time and place where the thought of nation is constantly piercing the sub-conscious and general conscious of the public atmosphere.   With the USA 2012 election  right around the corner, who hasn't heard the term nation repeated at least a hundred times in any of the GOP speeches or debates? Nation is used as a way to rally support, create unity, and above all develop an awareness of one's self and nation that is molded and shaped by each individual person beliefs and ideals that are somehow caught up with that of the nation. I think it is within this statement that creates what seems the most monumental controversy about nationalism and its many facades.  
 
Before I get to my interpretation of nationalism and its meaning, I think its best to situate nation on a grander scale and what it has meant to previous scholars.  Get a feel for its pros and cons. 
 
To do that I would like to start with Benedict Anderson's Introduction to Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
Anderson spends most of the introduction navigating between different thoughts about what he calls the "anomly" of nationalism ( Anderson 4).   He offers the suggestions that "nation-ness as wells as nationalism, are cultural artefacts of a particular kind. To understand them properly we need to consider carefull how they have come into historical being, in what ways their meanings have changed over time, and why, today they command such profound emotional legitimacy" (Anderson 4).  Anderson also says that "the creation of these artefacts towards the end of the eighteenth century was the spontaneous distillation of a complex crossing of historical forces; but once created they became 'modular,' capable of being transplanted with varying degrees of self-consciousness to a variety of social terrains" (Anderson 4).   These are two great and fundamentally useful ideas in understanding how nationalism works.     First, culture and nation are bound together through a historical aspect thus they become  historical "artefacts."  Second, the idea that nationalism began to spread at the end of the eighteenth century--a time when colonial expansion was beginning to take root through super powers like Spain, Britain, and Portugal.
 
Keeping Anderson's theorhetical insights in mind (that we must understand nationalism as a historical artefact) I think it appropriate to take a look at a crucial section from Aimé Césaire's Discourse on Colonialism.
Césaire holds colonialism historically accountable for its destruction of important and vital civilizations, not the creation of civilizations.   He says that before colonialism "non-European societies" were "...anti-capitalist...democratic...cooperative...fraternal" meaning they existed under a civilized and peaceful agenda (63).  They were "nations" with a strong notion of what it meant to be a working civilized community.    Césaire condemns colonialism, but makes the valid point that it is a "good thing to place different civilizations in contact with each other...a civilization that withdraws into itself atrophies" (61).  (KEEP THAT IN THE FRONT OF  YOUR MIND I WILL COME BACK TO THAT CONCEPT BECAUSE IT PLAYS A KEY PART IN DEFINING  NATIONALISM).  Colonialism was a bad thing because of Euro-centrism, meaning that Britain and its fellow colonial powers thought of themselves as superior and civilised therefore they took it upon themselves to deconstruct all ready existing nations.  Euro-centrism=negative form of nationalism that destroys all other nations. They deconstructed these nations by appropriating and twisting their culture and art, which as Anderson puts it, are intrinsically bound up with a nations historical past.  In essence colonial powers hijacked the non-European's national historical artefacts.

Césaire outlines the historical impact of colonialism, and how one form of nationalism was used to destroy another.  But he didn't offer an answer how to restore the former deconstructed nation.  Frans Fanon in On National Culture  highlights the essential role of the intellectual when it comes to reclaiming past notions of nation.    Fanon is best recognised as championing the "New Negro" movement as well as the African Liberation movement and both are very important in understanding Fanon's position because they aim at creating a connection to the past nations of Africa.  Once again, like both Anderson and Césaire, Fanon makes the key link that "culture is first and foremost national" (Fanon 204).   Thus culture and nation are synonymous. According to Fanon intellectuals have a duty to inspire national thought and to do that "the colonized man [must write] for his people [by using] the past with the intention of opening the future" (210).    What seems to be repetitious from all of these three so far is that history provides the key to understanding nationalism as well as thoughts of nation.  However,  to Fanon it is the current struggle of the colonized that serves as an allegorical and symbolic representation of regaining nationhood after  global colonization has taken place.

Since I mentioned the concept of allegory, its necessary to take a look at one final theorist in the hopes that I can shed some light on this rather thickle and slippery term.  In his essay "Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism."  Similarly like Césaire, Anderson, and Fanon  Jameson once gain makes the point that culture and nation are bound together--any Marxist should know that ideology(like that dictated by a Capitalist society) always plays a part in defining how a society works.  You can't have one without the other.   Fanon outlined the way colonized intellectuals should regain national consciousness, yet Jameson analyzed a very specific narrative produced by what he calls "Third-Word" countries--countries where he believes that the personal space has not yet been invaded by global Marxist capitalism.   This resistance is what Jameson coins the "national allegory" (69).  A national allegory is "the story of the private individual [which] is always an allegory of the embattled situation of the public third-world culture and society" (69).    These stories serve as symbolic representations of rebellion, but Jameson argues that symbolic messages are not enough.  In order to awaken the "collective identity it must be evaluated from a historical point" (78).

Each of these three theorist offered their insight into what stands for a nation and how one does conceive a nation.  Each agrees that nation and culture are bound together through history.  It is only by understanding one's history that one can understand just exactly what nationalism means. 

With that said, what I have taken away from each of these scholars and writers is the fact that nationalism is a very dangerous concept.  Dangerous in the fact that it can destroy nations, take the civilised, and make them uncivilised.  I told you to keep that "it is good thing to place different civilizations in contact with each other...a civilization that withdraws into itself atrophies" in the front of your mind.  This is an important part of understanding just exactly what nationalism is.  If one nation is to think its self superior and excludes all others from any contact what is to be gained or furthered? If European superpowers had recognized its colonies as previous civilizations and nations how could they have bettered themselves in lieu of the colonized?  Would we still have an Africa ravaged by war and dictators whose primary goal is to distinguish all outsiders at the expense of their own people?  Would Cuba have easily offered itself into the hands of another ruthless dictator who squashed all forms of diversity that went against national thought? Would America have gotten involved in Vietnam?

So many questions but no answers as to why nationalism has created such a disruption between each nation of the world.  To undo the colonial legacy it is dangerous to reuse the idea of nationalism, because its a form of exclusion and does not allow a space for people that are a product of cultural contact, or shall we say hybrids.  IT does not allow for further contact to take place between cultures.   With all that said and done nationalism is not always bad notion, because it acts as a catalyst to reconnect with one's history and one's pride.  It's not bad because it can offer a solution to the future.  

It is only bad when people use it as an excuse to say that my nation is better then all the rest.  My culture makes your culture look inferior.  My history is greater than yours, and  has no place for you in it.  One thing remains the same though,  understanding this notion of nation is a very dangerous space to occupy.  Do two wrongs make a right? Must we repeat what history has warned against over and over again? Must we always be caught up in this notion of nationalism, where one is always better than the other?  Must we close our borders, put up barriers, and refuse to connect with other cultures and nations? 

Will we eventually withdrawl into ourselves and atrophy? If we cannot overcome this notion of nationalism, I believe we will.