文學(xué)批評術(shù)語(下)

文藝批評術(shù)語（下）PAGEPAGE82009年4月28日星期二Feminism—itchieflyreferstothetheoreticalspeculationsonwomenandwomenrelatedsubjectsastheresultofthecontemporarywomen’smovement,whichismarkedlydifferentformthepreviousfeminisms.Historically,itmeansmovementsforrecognitionoftheclaimsofwomenforrights(legal,political,familial,etc.)equaltothosepossessedbymen.Gynocriticism—itreferstoanappropriateformoffeministcriticismtostudywomen’swritinginrelationtofemaleexperienceanddevelopoutofitatheoryappropriatetowomen.Comparedwithfeministcritique,itemphasizesthedifferencesoffemalewriters.ElaineShowalter,oneoftheleadingfeministcriticsintheUnitedStates,hasidentifiedthreehistoricphasesofwomen’sliterarydevelopment:the“feminine”phase(1840-80),duringwhichwomenwritersimitatedthedominanttradition;the“feminitst”phase(1880-1920),duringwhichwomenadvocatedminorityrightsandprotested;andthe“female”phase(1920-present),duringwhichdependencyonopposition-thatis,onuncoveringmisogynyinmaletexts–isbeingreplacedbyarediscoveryofwomen’stextsandwomen.Androgyny/androgynousmind—itisputforwardbyVirginiaWoolf.Itreferstofullbalanceandcommandofanemotionalrangethatincludemaleandfemaleelements.Itisanotherformofrepression,oratbestself-discipline.Theandrogynousmindisautopianprojectionoftheidealartist:calm,stale,unimpededbyconsciousnessofsex.Theandrogynousvisionisaresponsetothedilemmaofawomanwriterembarrassedandalarmedbyfeelingstoohottohandlewithoutriskingrealrejectionbyherfamily,heraudienceandherclass.Sex/Gender—bothrefertothestateofbeingafemaleormale.Sextendstorefertobiographicaldifference.Genderisregardedasapsychologicalconceptthatreferstoculturallyacquiredsexualidentity.Itfirstusedinthe14thcentury,primarilyingrammar(German),includingfeminine,masculineandneutral.Inasense,itmeansthestateofbeingafemaleormale.Itdidn’tbecomecommonuseuntilthe20thcentury.Feminineness,feminity—thequalityofbeingafemaleFoursignificantcurrentpracticesoffeminism:Genderstudies—itstressesgenderdifferences.Thesecriticsaremoreinterestedincertainqualitiesofmasculinityandfemininitythaninawriter’sorreader’sbiologicalsex.Theycounterthatliterarycriticisminvolvesactionsasmuchasreflection,andreadingforgendermakesthedeedexplicit,andwomenshouldescapethemasculine“norms”ofsociety.Marxistfeminism—itfocusesontherelationbetweenreadingandsocialrealities.ItattackstheprevailingcapitalisticsystemoftheWest,whichtheyviewassexuallyaswellaseconomicallyexploitative.Marxistfeministsthuscombinestudyofclasswiththatofgender.InMarxistfeminism,personalidentityisnotseenasseparatefromculturalidentity.Itemphasizeshistoricalandeconomiccontextsofliterarydiscourse,andoftendirectsattentiontowardtheconditionsofproductionofliterarytexts—thatis,theeconomicsofpublishinganddistributingtexts.Psychoanalyticfeminism—themostinnovativeuseofpsychoanalytictheoriesforfeministcriticismisamongtheFrench.Itstressesrepression.Theyargueseefeminisminitsbinaryoppositionsasamaleculturalnotionleftoverfromthepast.Theydescribeafeminineutopiainwhichwholenessratherthan“otherness”wouldprevailasadefinitionofidentityMinorityfeministcriticism—themostprominentofthefeministminorityisthatofblackandlesbianfeminists.Theyincludeeachotherinanalysesoftheproblemsofeithergroupandfeminismingeneralhasallieditselfwithdiverseargumentsagainstracism,xenophobiaandhomophobia.Itmayseemtoviolatetheirmostfundamentalideastoaddresstheminasingledirection,sincetheyhavestronglyprotestedboththeirmarginalizationinsocietyandtheiroftenunwantedgroupingswithotherminorities.Ithasbecomeawidespreadpairingamongthesubgroupsoffeministcritics.Definitionofdeconstruction:Deconstructionidentifiestextualfeaturesandconcentratesontherhetorical.ItacceptstheanalogyofthetexttosyntaxaspresentedbyFerdinandandadaptedbythestructuralists.Itfindsdisorderandaconstanttendencytothelanguagetorefuteitsapparentsense.Deconstructionviewstextsassubversivelyundermininganapparentorsurfacemeaning,anditdeniesanyfinalexplicationorstatementofmeaning.Deconstructiondescribestextasalwaysinastateofchange,furnishingonlyprovisionalmeanings.Itinvolvestakingapartanymeaningtorevealcontradictorystructureshiddenwithin.Itdeniesconnectionsofmind,textualmeaningandmethodologicalapproach,itrepresentsforstructuralistsonlynihilismandanarchy.Itopposeslogocentrism.Logocentrism:AccordingtoDerrida,"logocentrism"istheattitudethatlogos(theGreektermforspeech,thought,law,orreason)isthecentralprincipleoflanguageandphilosophy.Logocentrismistheviewthatspeech,andnotwriting,iscentraltolanguage.Thus,thescienceofwritingcanliberateourideasofwritingfrombeingsubordinatedtoourideasofspeechanditisamethodofinvestigatingtheoriginoflanguagewhichenablesourconceptsofwritingtobecomeascomprehensiveasourconceptsofspeech.Accordingtologocentristtheory,speechistheoriginalsignifierofmeaning,andthewrittenwordisderivedfromthespokenword.Thewrittenwordisthusarepresentationofthespokenword.Logocentrismmaintainsthatlanguageoriginatesasaprocessofthoughtwhichproducesspeech,andthatspeechthenproduceswriting.Differance:ItisthesubtiltyofDerrida'spunning.DerridapunsontheFrenchworddifferer,whichmeansboth"todiffer"and"todefer."Theresultisdifferance,whichisamisspellingof'difference.'Sincewordsareonlysignifiersandhavenoinherentmeaning,thereisadistancebetweentheasignifierandasignified.Themeaningisdeferred.Andsincewordsareidentifiedbywhattheyarenot,theirmeaningisdefinedbydifference.Hence,differance,whenspokeninFrench,soundsnodifferentfromdifference.Derridaisawarethatthetwowordssoundthesame,afactwhichexhibitsaweaknessinspokenlanguage.Newhistoricism:Amodeofanalysisthatseeshistoryasaformofwriting,discourse,orlanguage.Thisnewhistoricismabandonsanynotionofhistoryasanimitationofeventsintheworldorareflectionofexternalreality.Instead,itregardshistoryasaspeciesofnarrativewithgapsorrupturesbetweenepistemes--modesofthoughtandwaysofknowingthatcharacterizeagivenhistoricalmoment.Context:NewHistoricistsrejecttheNewCriticalpreceptthattextsareautonomousunitsthatshouldbeexaminedwithoutbringinginwhatNewCriticstermedthe"intentionalfallacy"(i.e.biographicalcriticism)orthe"historicalfallacy."NewHistoricists,bycontrast,arguethattextsarealwaysintimatelyconnectedtotheirhistoricalandsocialcontext,especiallyperhapswhentextsattempttorepressthatcontext.Toputitanotherway,historyservesastherepressedunconsciousofliterature.Textuality:AccordingtoNewHistoricism,alltextsmaybeexaminedfortheirhistoricity,justasanyhistoricalphenomenon,nomatterhowapparentlytrivialorunimportant,canbeanalysedmuchasonewouldaliterarytext.Circulation:NewHistoricistsarguethatalllevelsofsocietyshareinthecirculationofpowerthroughtheproductionanddistributionofthemostelementaryculturalandsocial"texts."Powerdoesnotresidesomehow"above,"withlawyers,politicians,andthepolice,butratherfollowsaprincipleofcirculation,wherebyeveryoneparticipatesinthemaintainenceofexistingpowerstructures.History:NewHistoricistsrejecttheWesterntendencytowritehistoryfromthetopdownoringrandnarrativestrokes.TheyareinsteadmoreconcernedwithwhatLyotardtermspetitsrécits,particularlyhowsuch"littlenarratives"participateintheconsolidationandmaintainanceofthestatusquo.Ideology:NewHistoriciststendtofollowthepost-Lacanianandpost-Marxistviewofideology.Ratherthanseeingideologyasfalseconsciousness,assomethingthatisobscuringone'sperceptionofthetruth,NewHistoricistsarguethattorecognizeyourownideologyislikepushingthebusyou'reridingon,sinceitissomuchapartofthewayyouperceivetheworldanditsworkings.ReadercriticismItisanumbrellatermusedtoencompassallthosereader-orientedcritics,whohavebeeninterestedsincethelate1960sinonewayoranotherinthereaderandreading.ChieflyamongthemaretheGermanreceptionaesthetics/theConstanceCriticalSchoolrepresentedbyH.R.JaussandW.Iser,andthereader-responsecriticismpracticedbyS.Fish,N.Holland,andD.Bleich.Alsocalledreceptiontheory/receptionaesthetics/reader-orientedcriticism.ItaroseinlargemeasureasareactionagainsttheNewCriticism,whichdominatedliterarycriticismforroughlyhalfacentury.Theargumentgoeslikesomethinglikethis:atextdoesnotevenexist,inasense,untilitisreadbysomereader.Indeed,thereaderhasapartincreatingoractuallydoescreatethetext.Ineffect,ifatextdoesnothaveareader,itdoesn’texistoratleastithasnomeaning.Itisreaders,withwhateverexperiencetheybringtothetext,whogiveititsmeaning.Whatevermeaningitmayhaveinheresinthereader,andthusitisthereaderwhoshouldsaywhatatextmeans.Theoreticalreaderisendowedwithcertaincharacteristicsandperformsspecialfunctions,forinstance,andhealsoservestorevealthenatureofreadingprocessandreadingexperience.Heisanentirelydifferentkindandenjoysthefulllimelightonstageonlywiththereadercriticism.Mockreader/fictitiousaddressee:proposedbyW.Gibson.Sincethereexistsinthetextanaddresserwhosevoiceistobeheardthroughouttheprocessofreading,theremustbeanaddresseewhoparticipatesinthedialoguewiththeaddresser(fictitiousspeaker/fictitiousauthor),and“assumethesetofattitudesandqualitieswhichthelanguageaskshimtoassume”.Thisfictitiousaddresseecreatedbythelanguageasatheoreticalconstructisonewholistenstoandagreeswiththefictitiousauthor,oritistheroleplayedbytheactualreaderifhereallywantstoenjoythestoryheisreading.Thetextcomestolifeonlywhenbeingread;thatis,themeaningfulexistenceoftheliteraryworkdependsontheinvolvementofthereader.InIserview,fictitiousreaderismerelyonecomponentpartofthereader’srole,bywhichtheauthorexposesthedispositionofanassumedreadertointeractionwiththeotherperspectives,inordertobringaboutmodifications.W.C.BoothfurtherelaboratedGibson’sdistinctionbetweentherealauthorandthefictitiousspeaker.Therealauthorcreatesinthetextan“impliedauthor”or“animpliedversion”ofhimself,whosepresencecanbefeltthroughthevaluesandbeliefsmaintainedintheworkandwhoseimagethereadermustconstructifheistorespondtothevariouscommitmentsoftheimpliedauthor.Therealauthor,increatinghisalterego,alsocreatesacounterpartoftherealreader.Thepeculiarityofthisreadercreatedbytheauthoristhathisvaluesandbeliefsmustcoincidewiththoseoftheauthor’sfortheactualreader,thisimpliesthatheshouldagreetoplaytheroleofthiscreatedreaderinordertoenjoytheliteraryworkheisreadingtothefull.WolfgangIserproposesadifferentmodelthoughbearingthesamenameas“theimpliedreader”,Thereader’spresencewithoutinanywaypredetermininghischaracterorhishistoricalsituationInIser’sview,theimpliedreaderembodiesallthosepredispositionsnecessaryforaliteraryworktoexerciseitseffect-predispositionslaiddown,notbyanempiricaloutsidereality,butbythetextitself.Theimpliedreaderasaconcepthashisrootsfirmlyplantedinthestructureofthetext;heisaconstructandinonewaytobeidentifiedwithanyrealreader;thetextualstructureoftheimpliedreaderiscomposedofthreebasiccomponents:thetextualperspectives,theirconvergentplace,andthevantagepointofthereader.Thelasttwocomponentsremainpotentialinthetextualstructureandhavetobeactualizedbytherealreader.Thisactualizationismadepossiblebytheothercomponentoftheimpliedreader,i.e.thestructuredacts.Heisthusbestunderstoodasaphenomenologicalconstructoftheactualreader.Wemayseethestructuredactsoftheimpliedreaderasaresponse-projectionmechanisminthereader.Inotherwords,facedwiththeappealstructureofthetext,thereaderfeelscompelledtoengagehimselfinaninteractionwiththeexttoactualizethemeaningpotential.H.R.Jaussdividesreadingintothreeconsecutivelevelsofhorizons:aestheticallyperceptualreading,retrospectivelyinterpretivereading,andhistoricalreading.Jaussshiftedemphasisfromtheexplicationofthesignificanceoftheform(i.e.,thesecondlevelofreading,orinterpretation)andthereconstructionofthehorizonofexpectations(i.e.thethirdlevelofreading,orreception)(thesetofcultural,ethical,andliterary(generic,stylistic,thematic)expectationsofawork’sreadersinthehistoricalmomentofitsappearance.”)totheinvestigationoftheaestheticqualityofthepoeticwork.Hedevisesaparticularreaderforthislevelofaestheticreading,“thehistoricalreader”:“oneisexperiencedinone’sassociationswithlyrics,butcaninitiallysuspendone’sliteraryhistoricalorlinguisticcompetence,andputinitsplacethecapacityoccasionallytowonderduringthecourseofthereading,andtoexpressthiswonderintheformofquestions”.Thehistoricalreaderisbaseduponthecentralnotionofthe“horizonofexpectations.”Readersoflatergenerationsshouldreconstructtheseoriginalexpectationstorestorethedialogicalrelationshipbetweentheworkanditsfirstreaders,inordertoengagethemselvesintheirowndialogueswiththework.Thismeansthehistoricalunderstandingofaworkdependsonthereconstructionofthehorizonoftheexpectations,whichentailsthereconstructionofahistoricalaudience.Idealreader(byJ.Culler)issomeonewhohaspossessed,orratherinternalized,theliteraryconventions,themasteryofwhichwouldenablehimtoperformliteraryreadingsacceptabletootherreaders,forsuchconventionsconstitutetheveryinstitutionofliteratureitself.Hehasperfectunderstandingofthetext,whosereactionisperfectandright.Hemustnotonlyfulfillthepotentialmeaningofthetextindependentlyofhisownhistoricalsituation,buthemustalsodothisexhaustively.Theidealreader,unlikethecontemporaryreader,isapurelyfictionalbeing;hehasnobasisinreality,anditisthisveryfactthatmakeshimsouseful;asafictionalbeing,hecanclosethegapsthatconstantlyappearinanyanalysisofliteraryeffectsandresponses.Hecanbeendowedwithavarietyofqualitiesinaccordancewithwhateverproblemhiiscalledupontohelpsolve.thecontemporaryreader:Therearethreetypesof“contemporaryreader-theonerealandhistorical,drawnfromexistingdocuments,andtheothertwohypothetical:thefirstconstructedfromsocialandhistoricalknowledgeofthetime,andthesecondextrapolatedfromthereader’srolelaiddowninthetext.TheinformedreaderproposedbyS.Fishcharacterizedbythreenotablecompetences:I)competenceinlanguage;ii)semanticcompetence;iii)literarycompetenceTransactivereadersuggestedbyN.Holland.Onewho“worksexplicitlyfromhistransactionofthetext.HerecreateshisidentityinreadingthroughaprocesscalledDEFT(defense-expectation-fantasy-transformation):thetransactivereaderbringstothetexthisexpectations,wishesandfears,findsinthetextthematchforallofthese,andthenrespondsbydefendingagainstthemwithhischaracteristicstrategies,eithertogratifythewishes,ortodefeatthefears.Oncethedeepwishesandfeararedefensivelyadapted,thereaderwillbeabletoderiveformthetextfantasiesthatyieldshimpleasureandbeginstoenjoythetextbytransformingtheguiltandanxietyarousedbythefantasiesinto“atotalexperienceofaesthetic,moral,intellectualorsocialcoherenceandsignificance.”StructuralismStructuralismflourishedin1960s’and1970s’.ItisderivedchieflyfromthelinguistictheoriesofSaussure.Inthestudyofliteraryworks,structuralismisdistinguishedbyitsrejectionofthosetraditionalnotionsaccordingtowhichliterature“expresses”anauthor’smeaningor“reflects”reality.Instead,the“text”isseenasanobjectivestructureactivatingvariouscodesandconventionswhichareindependentofauthor,reader,andexternalreality.Structuralistcriticismislessinterestedininterpretingwhatliteraryworksmeanthaninexplaininghowtheycanmeanwhattheymean:thatis,inshowingwhatimplicitrulesandconventionsareoperatinginagivenwork.Langage,LangueandParoleSaussuredistinguishes3levelsoflinguisticaspect,i.e.,langage,langueandparole.Langageisthebroadestaspect.Itincludesallhumanspeakingphisicallyandmentally.It’stoobroadandundefinedtobestudied.TheLangue/paroledistinctionisoneofthetheorecticalbasesofstructuralism.Languedenotesthetotalabstractsystemofalanguage,consistingofitssharedrulesofcombinationanditssystemofmeaningfuldistinctions,whereasparolereferstoanyconcreteapplicationoftheserulesinanindividualutterances.Thelanguethusunderliesandmakespossibleallthedifferentparolesinwhichitismanifested,andsoforSaussureitwasthelanguethatwastobetheproperobjectoflinguisticstudy.Sign,SignifierandSignifiedSign:Abasicelementofcommunication,eitherlinguisticornon-linguistic,oranythingthatcanbeconstruedashavingameaning.AccordingSaussaure,everysignhastwoinseparableaspects:thesignifier,whichisthemateriallyperceptiblecomponentsuchasasoundorwittenmark,andthesignified,whichistheconceptualmeaning.Inalinguisticsign,accordingtoSaussure,therelationshipbetweensignifierandsignifiedis“unmotivated”orarbitrary:thatis,itisbasedpurelyonsocialconventionratherthanonnaturalnecessity.CodeCode,asharedsetofrulesorconventionsbywhichsignscanbecombinedtopermitamessagetobecommunicatedfromonepersontoanother.Ithasanimportantplaceinstructuralisttheories,whichstresstheextenttowhichmessages(includingliteraryworks)calluponalreadycodedmeaningsratherthanfreshrevelationsofrawreality.BinaryOppositionTheprincipleofcontrastbetweentwomutuallyexclusiveterms:on/off,up/down,left/rightetc:animportantconceptofstructuralism,whichseessuchdistinctionsasfundamentaltoalllanguageandthought.Mythandarchetypalcriticism:Myth:initsmostordinarymeaningreferstostoriesofgodsorothersupernaturalbeingshandeddownfromancienttimes.Acollectionoftraditionalmythsinacultureornationreflects,allegorically,itsculturalornationalhistory.Beingreadandre-readbygenerationsofpeopleinanationculture,thesemythsareoftenregardedasitsspiritualidentity.Archetype:themodernconceptofthearchetypeappearedinthelate19thcentury,referringtotherecurringliteraryphenomenasuchasmotifs,themes,andnarrativedesigns.Itisakindofuniversalsymbol.Differentnationsindifferentformsexpressthesamearchetype.Unconscious:Jungbelievestheinfluenceofcircumstances,experienceandexpressionofit,establishmentofcustomandnecessityarehandeddownfromremoteancienttimetopresent,composingthemainpartofunconscious.ForJung,unconsciousisdividedinto2parts,individualunconsciousandcollectiveunconscious(orracialunconscious).Heassertscollectiveunconsciousisapartofmind,differentfromindividualunconscious,thatistosay,whileindividualunconsciouscomesfromindividualexperience,collectiveunconsciousisnotobtainedbyindividual.Thecontentsofindividualunconsciousarethattheyareonceconsciousbuttheyareforgottenorrepressed,thendisappearintheconscious.Whereas,thecontentofcollectiveunconsciousneverappearinconscious,sotheyarenotobtainedbyindividualunconsciousbutcomesintobeingentirelyfromheredity.Mostcontentsofindividualunconsciousarecomplexes,whilemostofcollectiveunconsciousarearchetype.Racialmemory:itisoneofthemaincontributionsofJung.Itisakindofsedimentordepositewhichishandeddowngenerationaftergenerationbynumeroussimilarexperienceofpsychologyofallthemembersofrace.Itisakindofhereditarypsychologymaking.Itappearsinsomeimageries,storieswhichappearagainandagain,soitiscalled“archetype”.Oritcanbesaidthatarchetypeisakindofprimordialimageorimagery.Individualization(個(gè)體化):meansmaturityofpsychology,thatis,theprocesstodiscovereveryaspectintheegoofeachperson.Maturityofeachpersonmeanshemustknoweveryaspectinhisegowhicharelikedbyothersandtheaspectswhicharenotlikedbyothers.Shadow(暗影):istheevilsideofegoandunconscious.It’stheinnermostpersonality.It’stheheredityofbrutalrace,includingpassions,moraldesiresandactivities,similarasFreud’sid,whichrepresentsthedarksideunknowntopeopleinpersonality.ThesymbolicprojectionofarchetypeinliteratureisexpressedasIagointragedyofShakespeare’s“Othello”,SataninMilton’s“ParadiseLost”,etc..Anima:isthemostcomplicatedoneinJung’sarchetype.It’stheimageryofsoul,vitalityinman,thefemalecharacteristicsinthemindofmaleinbothIUandCU,justastheGermanproverbgoes,“Eveineveryman”.Humanmindisofdoublesex.Thepsychologicalcharacteristicsofoppositesideareusuallydifficultforpeopletofind.Itliesintheunconscious.Onlywhenshownindreamsorprojectedoncertainpersonlivingaround.Usually,man’sfemalecharacteristicisprojectedonwomen.JungthinksHeleninHomer’s“Faustus”andEveinMilton’s“ParadiseLost”areexpressionofanima.Accordingtohim,anyfemaleimagewithunusualsignificanceandpowercanberegardedassymbolofanima.Itsfunctionisbetweenegoorreasonandunconscious.Personma:istheoutmostpersonalitybetweenegoandtheoutsideworld.It’sformedbyindividualsundertheinfluenceofsurroundings.It’stheoppositesideofanima.Justlikeacoin,theinsideisanimaandtheoutsideispersonma.Personmaissocialpersonalitylikeamask,whichdoesnottrulytellidRitual:isarepeatedactivity,akindformofdramatizationwhichsymbolizesbasicneedsofsociety,economics,socialorbiologicalneeds.Collectiveunconsciousness:thetermgivenbytheSwisspsychologistJungtotheinbornracialmemorywhichhebelievedtobetheprimitivesourceofthearchetypesoruniversalsymbolsfoundinlegends,poetry,anddreams.PostcolonialismPostcolonialismexaminestheimpactoftheeconomic,cultural,andpoliticalcolonizationofAsia,Africa,andtheAmericasbytheUnitedStatesandthecountriesofEurope.Majorconcernsinpostcolonialstudiesinclude1)howthenativepopulationsweredestroyed,oppressed,orotherwisetransformedbytheprocessofcolonizationitself;2)howthosepopulationsstruggledtoachievefreedomfromthecolonialforces(hence,"post"colonialism);and3)howtheeffectsofcolonialismcontinuetobefeltinboththecolonizedandcolonizingnations.diaspora

*Fanonism

*hybridity

*imperialism

*Manicheanism

*negritude

*orientalism

*settler-colony

*subaltern

*trans-culturationDiasporastudiespresupposetheexistenceofdisplacedgroupsofpeoplewhoretainacollectivesenseofidentity.Studiesofdiasporicgroupsanddiasporicculturalproductionareattheintersectionofseveralfieldsofresearchonmigration,globalculturalflows,ethnicityand(post)coloniality.Diasporicdiscoursestendtoproblematizeratherthancombinethosecategories.Diasporasinvolvetravelingandbordercrossing,butdonotassumethatreturntotheplaceoforiginisinevitableorpossible.Exileispartofdiaspora,butdiasporicexileiscomplicatedbytheunavailabilityorabsenceofahomeand/orstate,orbyadeliberatechoicenottomovetothenewlycreatedstateor"homeland,"orbyatensionaboutwherethehomeland,ifitexistsatall,reallyis.Theword"diaspora"hasevolvedfromanearlyidentificationwithJewishcommunitiestoincludetheexperienceofpeoplesmarkedbyforcedmigrationandenslavement(theAfricandiasporaintheU.S.,LatinAmerica,andtheCaribbean),bydictatorships,warsoreconomicdisplacements(theIrishdiaspora,theHaitiandiasporatoCanada,Vietnameseboatpeople),andasaconditionofcolonialismandthepostcolonialperiod(SouthAsianandCaribbeancommunitiesinEngland,sub-SaharanAfricanandMaghrebiancommunitiesinFrance,etc.).Globalizationandtheevolutionofpostcolonialconditionsarefurthercomplicatingtheissuebyforcingindividualsandcommunitiestoredefinetheirrelationshiptothenation,toethnicityandtolanguage.Oneofthemostdisputedtermsinpostcolonialstudies,‘hybridity'commonlyrefersto“thecreationofnewtransculturalform