離散經驗：論析奈波爾《大河灣》的『家』與身分認同

Abstract

當許多後殖民的作家和批評家，例如薩爾曼‧魯西迪(Salman Rushdie)和霍米‧巴巴(Homi K. Bhabha)，倡導「交混」(hybridity)、「異質化」(heterogeneity)、「多樣性」(multiplicity)以及「殖民模擬」(colonial mimicry)等概念時，奈波爾的作品卻透露著他對已逝去殖民母國的懷舊，以及他將本質化、固定化、二元對立式的種族、性別、階級身分認同視為理所當然。在一片反帝國主義、反本質主義的身分定位論，推崇不純、混合、重組、移動、越界的概念中，這位2001年諾貝爾文學得主顯得格格不入，不受歡迎。像是愛德華‧薩依德 (Edward W. Said)、齊努亞．阿契貝(Chinua Achebe)、德瑞克‧沃爾克特(Derek Walcott)等，都對於奈波爾的作品有嚴厲的抨擊。他們認為奈波爾對於第三世界國家毫無同情心的描寫，只是欲藉由揭露自己民族的瘡疤，來滿足西方讀者對於第三世界的一成不變並帶有偏見的想像，而非像歐文‧侯伊(Irving Howe)等批評家讚譽奈波爾誠實地呈現出第三世界國家的動盪不安、暴力、貪污、貧窮和絕望。一方面，奈波爾的二元對立本質論述應該要被批判，因為這種本質論述太過簡化且會阻礙社會流動性(social mobility)。但另一方面，這些意識型態批判容易使得這些知識分子忽略了奈波爾文本的複雜性及其所要傳達卻隱藏在文字間的訊息。亦即，雖然奈波爾文本有許多意識型態的問題，卻也同時透露在這些問題背後，充滿了很多身為一個外來被殖民者必須要面對的矛盾、自我衝突、和認同斷裂。奈波爾的筆下所要傳達的就是這些痛苦與矛盾。本論文即是藉由指出這些痛苦和矛盾來解釋奈波爾文本為何有那些意識型態的問題，而不只是一味流於批評奈波爾而已。\n 本論文主要是以「離散」(diaspora)的角度來分析奈波爾的《大河灣》。「離散」是一種離開自己原有故鄉而客居異地的處境。這種失根、跨國、混雜的離散經驗，儼然使得「離散」成為一個顛覆國家定義(nation-states)、反本質論述的概念。然而在《大河灣》，奈波爾筆下的兩個主角，沙林和英達爾，對於離散經驗帶給他們的無根可歸、文化混雜、認同斷裂，他們並非欣然接受，反而感到憤怒與不安。重新建立（拾回）對家的歸屬感以及擺脫混雜的自我是他們認為解決自己痛苦和焦躁不安的唯一途徑。在建立屬於自己家園的過程中，從非洲東岸到內陸、從內陸到倫敦，他們表現出對已逝帝國的懷舊和沉醉，以及想從邊緣(margin)進入到中心(center)的渴望。被殖民者因受殖民母國所帶來現代性的影響，而開始對遠方的殖民母國產生想像和嚮往；他們甚至無形中內化了殖民宗主國對於被殖民者的種族刻板意象，而導致被殖民者不僅被異化也造成了自我的異化。為了要解決自我異化後所帶來的自卑感，被殖民著開始模仿殖民者，認為被中心接受是肯定自我價值的唯一之道。然而，面對文化霸權的宗主國，被殖民者作為一個外來者，結果不是被排斥否則就是被同化。這兩個主角追求想像中理想的家，最終失敗。既然無法融入寄居國，英達爾則想要重拾對祖國故鄉的歸屬感。但他所接觸到的印度和自己想像中的完全不一樣。他所見到的印度人表面上假裝自己是英國人，但骨子裡卻充滿了迷信，固守自己的階級制度。英達爾對自己家鄉的厭惡不僅僅是因他以西方價值觀來衡量自己的家鄉，同時也是自我厭惡的表現。他從這些印度人身上看見了自己，了解自己也只是眾多模擬者之一，把自己外表打扮像殖民者，但是卻對殖民母國有著疏離感和自卑感。因被殖民和離散的經驗，導致身份的混雜和模擬的行為，這對於奈波爾的故事中主角是急於想擺脫的，但卻擺脫不了。\n 殖民經驗也建構了被殖民者的自我身分認同。沙林認同的是此理想意像─中產階級白人男性。但在去殖民化後，整個政治的運作和權力分配都因此受到影響，而導致沙林意識到這種本質、固定、僵化的個人身分認同遭受到危機而欲極力挽救。雖然他隱約察覺到所謂本質化的身分認同其實是依賴和它者的關係所建構的，是充滿不穩定性的，但沙林仍然努力回復。因為唯有如此，他才能在這動亂不安的時代，獲得安全感。\n 以上所述，並非要推翻批評家對奈波爾的批判，或合理化奈波爾的本質論傾向。本論文不僅保有了批評家對奈波爾文本的嚴厲評論，並更進一步地去探討其為何有本質論的傾向。\n 本論文組成共有五章。第一章是導論，主要介紹批評家對奈波爾的爭議並點出為何本論文嘗試以「離散」的角度來切入探討《大河灣》。第二章對「離散」這個概念作批判性的回顧，以克力弗特(James Clifford)和 布菈(Avtar Brah)對「離散」觀點是我最為推崇的。此外，也介紹印度離散族群在歷史上如何形成。第三章是以「家」為主題，巴巴的現代性理論和弗朗茲‧法農 (Frantz Fanon)的《黑皮膚、白面具》(Black Skin, White Masks)分別於解釋主角為何對殖民母國有著矛盾的情感。第四章則是探討離散族群如何面對自己身分認同的危機。這一章不僅分析主角為何有身分認同的危機，同時也對主角的本質化式身分認同作批判。此章節引用史都華‧霍爾(Stuart Hall)在《文化認同和離散》(“Cultural Identity and Diaspora”)的觀點，文中強調身分認同不是結果，而是過程，是「存在」(being)，同時也是「形成」(becoming)。第五章是結論，旨在重申本論文的企圖，意欲重新思考本質論在奈波爾文本中的呈現。\n 當晚近的論述一再強調混雜、模擬、跨疆界等概念，奈波爾的文本卻展示這些概念只是帶來痛苦、矛盾、不安和弱勢的處境。因此，本論文認為在批判奈波爾的同時，也應深究其文本所要關切的的離散族群和第三世界人民均似乎無法解決的困境。

While most postcolonial writers and critics such as Salman Rushdie and Homi K. Bhabha celebrate the concepts of hybridity, heterogeneity, multiplicity and colonial mimicry, V. S. Naipaul’s works instead reveal his nostalgia for the loss of “Englishness” and his longing for singularity rather than plurality. Apparently, he is not popular with many postcolonial critics such as Edward Said, Chinua Achebe, and Derek Walcott. Unlike Irving Howe, who admires Naipaul for his disinterested representation of the instability, violence, poverty, and corruption of the Third World, they criticize Naipaul’s allegiance to the West and his attempt to court European readers. On the one hand, Naipaul’s bipolar essentialism should be put into question because it reduces complex social relations to absolute and fixed divisions and also limits the possibilities of the social mobility. On the other hand, too much emphasis on the problematic of Naipaul’s ideologies will reduce the contradictions, complexity and ambivalence in Naipaul’s works. Thus, rather than just accusing Naipaul of his bias against postcolonial societies, the thesis attempts to have a deep and comprehensive understanding of Naipaul’s A Bend in the River (hereafter BR).\n The thesis aims to analyze Naipaul’s BR from the perspective of “diaspora.” The concept of diaspora is annexed for anti-essentialism and anti-nation. However, in BR, the two protagonists, Salim and Indar, cannot embrace but try to get rid of their hybrid selves. Either to assume the new solidarity in the host country or to obtain a sense of belonging to the ancestral homeland is the way out. Their journey from East Africa to the interior of Africa, and finally to London reveals their reminiscence of the imperial past and their desire to leave the “margin” and head for the “center.” Their nostalgia for the loss of “Englishness” can be seen as the result of modernity, brought about by imperialism. Besides, as colonial subjects, they are not simply alienated but also made to alienate themselves; they adopt the identity of the “Other” as opposed to the “Self” that the British Empire represents. To solve their inferiority complex brought about by their self-alienation, they make efforts to imitate colonizers, seeing their success solely in terms of their acceptance by the “center.” However, it is never easy for the outsiders to assimilate themselves to host countries. Failing to making himself part of the “center,” Indar instead attempts to regain his sense of belonging to \nthe ancestral homeland. However, the India he experiences is different from what he has imagined. The Indians he sees try to make themselves look like Britons but they are unable to shake off what the caste system has imposed on them. Indar’s disgust at his ancestral homeland should not be merely attributed to his belief in the hierarchical binarism of West/East. Instead, his contempt for those Indians can also be regarded as self-contempt. He sees himself in those Indians, aware that he is one of them, who dress like Britons but always feel alienated and inferior in the “center.” The theoretically celebrated concepts of “mimicry” and “hybridty” become marks of cultural fracture in Naipaul’s BR. \n Salim’s essentialism is reflected not only in his quest for home but also in his efforts to maintain his identities constructed within the imperial discourse. As a colonial subject, Salim has identified himself with an ideal image, a white male bourgeois. However, after the withdrawal of the Empire, the substantive and privileged “I” Salim has taken for granted is threatened as a result of political disorder. In the process of restoring what he sees as the coherent and unified self, he is somehow aware that the seeming fixed and essentialized self is constructed in his relation to others and is subject to change in different historical and cultural contexts. Nevertheless, Salim disavows what he has realized and keeps struggling to maintain his identity. The reason is that only by doing so can he at least have a secure sense of self in such a turbulent world. \n The foregoing argument is neither to show my disapproval of critics’ harsh remarks about Naipaul nor to make excuses for Naipaul’s tendency towards essentialism. Instead, the thesis not only criticizes Naipaul’s belief in essentialism but also explores the reasons why essentialism holds an appeal to Naipaul.\n The thesis is comprised of five chapters. The first chapter presents critics’ attitudes towards Naipaul and his works, which can be divided into two opposed camps, and points out why BR can be textually analyzed from the perspective of “diaspora.” The second chapter provides overviews of the term “diaspora.” Particularly, Avtar Brah’s and James Clifford’s theoretical and methodological approaches to “diaspora” are mostly stressed for they help illustrate the way the politics of home and identity will be dealt with in the following two chapters. Besides, the emergence of Indian diaspora in history will also be discussed in this chapter. The third chapter focuses on the politics of home. Bhabha’s discourse on modernity in postcolonial world and Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks (1967) explain the two protagonists’ ambivalent and contradictory attitudes towards their motherland and\n ancestral homeland. By discussing the reasons for their imperialist ideologies, disclosed in the process of uprootings and regroundings, this chapter aims to present the dilemma colonial subjects lapse into, that is, inferiority complex, self-contempt and homing desire. Thus, “diaspora” cannot be merely seen as a celebratory term. Instead, in-betweenness, homelessness, multiple belongings, and mimicry anguish diasporans rather than empower them. The fourth chapter explores how diasprans solve their identity crises. This chapter not only explores why the protagonists have identity crises but also criticizes their tendency towards essentialism, emphasizing that identity, as Stuart Hall in his “Cultural Identity and Diaspora” argues, is both a matter of “being” and “becoming.” Though this chapter reveals that identity is constructed rather than fixed, the appeal of essentialism to diasporans should not be subject to the total negation particularly after the discussion of the reasons for diasporans’ identity crises. The fifth chapter is the conclusion of the thesis, briefly explicating the theme of the thesis. This chapter argues that diasporans’ obsession with essentialist notions of “center” and “essence” respectively disclosed in the process of seeking for/returning home and in the process of maintaining his “idealized” identity in BR should not lead to the rash accusation of Naipaul’s imperialist intention. By discussing what leads to Naipaul’s ideological interests, the thesis discloses the dilemma ex-colonials and post-colonial societies may be faced with. The humanistic approach to Naipaul’s work reveals that this very concept of essentialism should be understood in the specific historical context instead of being universally considered negative.\n The concepts of “hybridity,” “mimicry” and “border crossing” are emphasized and celebrated by most post-colonial critics; however, Naipaul’s BR reveals that those concepts which have inscribed in the two Indian diasporans make them suffer. Rather than accusing Naipaul of the problematic of his ideologies, the thesis attempts to focus on the dilemma both diasporans and postcolonial societies lapse into.