Home(s) Abroad: Diasporic Identities
in Third Spaces
Sura P. Rath,
Louisiana State University -- Shreveport
Copyright © 2000 by Sura P. Rath, all rights reserved. This article
is reproduced with the kind permission of the editors of JOUVERT:
Journal of Postcolonial Studies.
- I present the three following anecdotes in order to re-conceptualize
home as both a concrete location (a place or space in a geographic/cartographic
sense) and an abstract space in the conceptual realm (an imaginary
construct, at best) circumscribed by cultural and/or historical
boundaries.
- Item 1: A naturalized American citizen of Indian
origin, I travel by American Airlines and Gulf Air via Dallas,
Chicago, London, Abu Dhabi, and Bahrain. On my arrival at
the Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi, the immigration
officer matches the picture in my passport against my face
to verify their identity (sameness), checks the information
on the disembarkation card, and asks, Why have you
come here? Although the information on the card
is unambiguous -- to visit family members and relatives
-- he takes care to assure himself that there is no unwritten
message in my eyes.
- Item 2: On my return to the United States, at the
D/FW airport in Dallas the INS officer checks my passport,
smiles, and says, Welcome back home, Mr. Rath.
- Item 3: In a sincere and aggressive effort to globalize
an urban comprehensive university campus for the twenty-first
century, its Board of Trustees makes a proactive choice to
appoint local people to all its administrative positions.
Instead of bringing the world to this mid-size southern city,
the logic holds, we project a home-made local world of ourselves
out into the global stage.
-
In the first incident at Delhi, as a person with the unmistakable
physical features of an Indian -- eyes, nose, skin, face, and
all -- I am mystified by the Indian immigration officers
question at the airport. Leaving aside the possibility that
its tone is skewed by the infelicity in translation -- a particular
example of the perils of the linguistic hangover of British
colonialism -- the question begs some reflection: truly, why
have I come here? On the surface, it is my homecoming. I am
here because my home is here; I am here because my mother, the
source of my being, is here, and my brothers and sisters and
their families are here, and because my friends and acquaintances
and their families are here; I am here because my investments
of the first twenty-five years of my life are here; I am here
because I am at home here, because it is here, because
family, friends, relatives, childhood experiences, formative
influences -- all these are inalienably allied with our concept
of home. One could say perhaps that home-ness and here-ness
share the same psycho-lingual deep structure, and the officers
question drew my attention to a radical separation between my
home and myself.
- Yet the officers seemingly rude question, on further reflection,
seems appropriate and necessary because of his and his agencys
historical experience with people who take advantage of their
Indian origin and appearance to engage in activities injurious
to India. To me, however, the more challenging aspect of the question
was the here-ness of the here: where is my here?
Those elements of my home that I consider to be still
in India seemed to need revalidation, since embedded in the officers
question was an implicit separation between the speakers
here and the here of a visitor such as
myself; the problematic here reminded me of my difference.
My American passport separates me from my Indian identity, yet
naturalization, essentially a transfer of ones territorial
identity for legal purposes, does not dissolve the other/earlier
identities, even when it is accompanied by a change of name. Physically
and spiritually Indian, but politically and perhaps intellectually
an American, I stand at the crossroads where two nationalities/localities
intersect. Both merge in me, yet each remains sovereign. In me
the two engage in conflicts and tensions that are sometimes subsumed
under my internationalism or globalism.
- The second experience at Dallas is a corollary of the first.
Dislocated from my birthplace home in the Indian city state --
i.e., I am no local and I have no locale in IndiaI
return to my workplace home. Irrespective of the surface of my
appearance and of his own personal views toward immigrants and
naturalized citizens, the INS officer performs his duty by being
pleasant to a fellow American citizen. Upon reflection, I realize
that the homecoming welcome at Dallas is as empty a signifier
as the matching of the passport picture with my face in Delhi.
In each instance, surface meets surface.
- Now, to the third anecdote. On the university campus, where
I am a part of the institutional statistics of 3.9% international
faculty, presuming to enrich our students undergraduate
global experience and collaterally satisfying the base-line expectations
of the accreditation agencies, I am anything but local. The onerous
burden of this token role becomes all the more painful when some
colleague teaching International Business requires her students
to interview a foreigner, and advises the student
working on India to knock on my door for an interview; or when
I am invited as a panelist on the College of Educations
cultural diversity symposium to extol the virtues of cultural
assimilation; or when I talk to a Sociology of Minorities class
about the political injustices meted out to early Indian immigrants
in Canada and America. During the international culture celebration,
inquisitive students want to know about my encounters with tigers
in nature around my village in India, but are disappointed to
learn that the ones I saw were in Nandan Kanan (a zoo in the eastern
state of Orissa in India) and the San Diego zoo. A few students
who have had the privilege of traveling to London say, with patronizing
voice, they love Indian food. These are the boundaries of my foreign-ness:
the tiger, the cobra, the red dot on the Indian womans forehead,
the spicy food, and naked children begging on the streets. To
my neighbors, as perhaps to my colleagues and students, I represent
the alien global culture fantastically framed by/in Indiana
Jones and the Temple of Doom, where the superstitious people
of a whole village terrorized by a bully sadhu are rescued from
their own fear by the American anthropologist Professor Jones,
where raw brains of live monkeys are served as dessert on fine
banquet tables, and where in the popular imagination the professor
becomes an incarnation of Vishnu, a savior of the pagan flock.
To them, my mind is a cultural production of some nebulous globalism
that waits outside the municipal boundaries of my city, parish,
and state. The reality of the body, a material production of one
local culture, and the abstraction of the mind, a cultural sub-text
of a global experience, provide the intertwining threads of my
diasporic life, a neither/nor condition parallel to that of Trishanku.
This is a third dimension of my multivalent identity. In The
Location of Culture Homi
Bhabha has called this the third space, a hybrid location
of antagonism, perpetual tension, and pregnant chaos. Lavie and
Swedenburg tell us "[I]ts products are . . . results of a long
history of confrontations between unequal cultures and forces,
in which the stronger culture struggles to control, remake, or
eliminate the subordinate partner" (9).
|
|