RECONCEPTUALISING INTEGRATION

THE CONCEPTUAL UTILITY OF CULTURAL HYBRIDITY

Paper presented to
AHRC Diasporas, Migration and Identities Programme / CRONEM Conference
Diasporas, Migration and Identities: Crossing Boundaries, New Directions
11 / 12 June 2009
University of Surrey
By
Anne Bostanc, University of Surrey

Introduction
This brief paper is based on some work that I have done previously about the everyday
realities, experiences and cultural identity of self-identified Deutschtrken or German-Turks
in Germany. It centres on the utility of Bhabhas (2002) concept of cultural hybridity in
making sense of the concept of integration. Other scholars have referred to its relevance in
bi-cultural, and indeed multi-cultural, politics, such as postcolonial settings beyond Bhabhas
original focus (e.g. Meredith 1998), but so far the link to the integration discourse currently
employed in the context of migration to and in Europe, which is a product of similar
acceptance of the long-term settlement entailed by this very different form of migration, has
not been made.
The Integration Discourse in Germany and the United Kingdom
Before the background of a tradition of de facto segregation and demands for full assimilation
vis--vis foreigners,* in Germany integration is understood as a sort of middle ground and
this expression should already raise suspicion as it reflects the obscurity of the term
between previous assimilationist discourses on the one hand and exclusion or the emergence
of parallel societies respectively on the other. With the recently emerged fear in the UK of the
latter often, but in my opinion wrongly, understood as a failure of, thus discredited,
multiculturalism this rhetoric has been used increasingly by the British political elite as
well. The fact that the integration discourse is taken up by an increasing number of countries
illustrates that the alternatives of complete assimilation and complete segregation or
separation are not feasible in practice. For this reason, and especially in view of the fact that
the integration discourses and policy proposals in both exemplary countries tend to savour
strongly of assimilation, it is important to understand more precisely what integration means
and especially how it works, for how else will it be possible to identify it empirically and
promote it through policy? This paper proposes that the concept of cultural hybridity might be
useful to these ends.
Trying to Make Sense of Integration
In an attempt to illustrate how integration works and to disprove the overly simplistic
assumption that national and cultural identification are necessarily singular a belief that
underlies German nationality laws rejection of dual citizenship some authors outline that it
is indeed possible for migrants to feel a sense of belonging to and engage in practices
*

cf. Brubaker 1992, Horrocks and Kolinsky 1996, Wilpert 1993, etc. for more information on history
of and issues in the German discourse on migration, integration, citizenship law, etc.

originating from and relating to both their culture or country of origin and that of their
domicile. While this used to be vaguely but generally accepted as an everyday experience in
the British context, Kolinsky (1996: 152) addresses the long-neglected need to theorise this
phenomenon in the context of migrant minorities in Germany and refers to it as bi-polarity.
However, this term unfortunately has two major shortcomings: Firstly, it implies two
ostensibly distinct ranges of practices to pick and choose from according to situation.
Secondly, with the sole focus on an active role of the migrant, it poses a perpetuation of oneway engagement of the type of assimilation and passes unquestioned the assumptions of
hierarchies of cultures that underlie them. Because none of these criticisms apply to it, I
believe that Bhabhas concepts of hybridity, though originating from a very different
historical referent, has more validity.
Integration as Hybridity and Inhabiting the Third Space
Bhabha defines hybridity as a third space or interstitial moment from which an individual
may speak and act. While he clearly struggles with the limitations of language and, in his
choice of terms, reproduces the assumption of boundedness and limited number of cultures
involved, his concepts are not intended in this way, but rather to open up space to overcome
both. There is no reason not to assume that third is used in the sense of additional here
rather than its numeric meaning. Furthermore, it is easy enough to see that the very fact that
new cultural spaces and moments are constantly created implies that there is no such thing as
boundedness. This is confirmed by Bhabhas (1998: 34) assertion of the impossibility of
cultures containedness and the boundary between. Regarding the second set of criticisms, I
would argue that this unboundedness suggests that culture is a continually developing
performance and cannot, as such, be seen as an absolute or essential entity or even specific
ones thereof placed in hierarchies. If there cannot be hierarchies, then there can also not be a
justification of demands for one-sided assimilation. Therefore, as the integration discourse
implicitly attempts to overcome such demands for one-sided assimilation, hybridity as well as
the understanding of culture and its function contained therein, help making sense of why
there is no room for such demands within the concept of integration.
Critiquing Cultural Hybridity
Nevertheless, it cannot be overlooked that in practice adverse power relations might interfere
with the integrative function identified. It is indeed the greatest weakness of Bhabhas
original concept of hybridity that, although originally conceived to render white supremacist
assumptions theoretically obsolete, they neglect the influence power structures continue to
have on their function and outcomes in practice. This has led for instance Hutnyk (quoted in
Werbner and Modood 2000: 15) to criticise the hybridity discourse as a form of moral selfcongratulation practiced by a limited number of diasporic intellectuals. For with regard to the
less socially eminent hybrids, what happens is the following: as the concept fails to mark a
clear and easily identifiable distinction between hybridity and an understanding of otherness
in the more conventional terms of us versus them that informs the understanding of most bior multi-cultural politics, many hybrids are generally perceived as others along the lines of
the long-standing binary opposition. The connection of this problem to the failure to take
power structures into account is, of course, that it is the latter that often make it impossible for
the hybrid to assert his or her hybridity and avoid having simplistic processes of othering
imposed upon him or her.
Rescuing Cultural Hybridity
This critique of cultural hybridity is not only valid, but also of the utmost importance as it
identifies exactly the problems of the theoretical concept in taking on any meaningful

practical applicability. However, this is then a practical issue which will be addressed in a
moment and does not put into question the plausibility or value of the innovative insights of
the theoretical concept for understanding processes of integration at all. And on the practical
level, it helps identify how exactly the legacy of assimilationist discourses that the integration
discourse carries work and what aspects of the integration process need to be addressed in
practice, i.e. policy, in order to further genuine integration. Firstly, highlighting hybrid forms
that fall victim to exactly the power inequalities mentioned above, i.e. simplistic forms of
othering of hybrids based on ignorance of the other, will help identifying existing patterns of
integration that could be supported. Secondly, the mechanism of mimicry by which hybridity
often works needs to be understood in order to address the anxieties it causes. Let me explain
these by very different examples taken from the German context.
Examples of Integration: Difficulties of Identifying the Hybrid
Despite common German stereotype, the ever-contentious headscarf cannot simply be
equated with strong devotion to religious Islam. As Karakasoglu-Aydin (1998), quoted in
Terkessidis (2000), finds in her interviews with young Turkish women in Germany, that they
appropriate the veil for their own politics. Wearing a trban, a particular type of headscarf
different from traditional forms, they achieve the following double effect: on the one hand
they refuse the sexualisation of the eroticised body (Terkessidis 2000: 231) seen to be
propagated by the society in which they live and draw on the respectability and humility
associated with the traditional headscarf, but on the other hand they assert their identification
with modern values and reject the traditional, often religiously defined, ones associated with
the traditional headscarf. Therefore, it is the ignorance of the surrounding society that renders
this particular form of hybrid invisible and makes them vulnerable to simplistic processes of
othering as outlined above, because it can only pose the binary opposition of headscarf versus
no headscarf instead of understanding different forms. But it is not only forms of hybridity
rendered invisible by ignorance that need to be addressed in an attempt to understand
integration conceptually and in practical terms.
Examples of Integration: Spotting how Hybridity Works
Another important aspect is identifying how hybridity and, thus, integration works in visible
cases as well. Bhabha (2002: 86) explains this as a process of mimicry, in which the hybrid
imitates forms of expression of the cultural contexts in which he or she moves and that
produces a subject of difference that is almost the same but not quite. As the example above
illustrates, this involves a process of adoption, incorporation and subversion that gives rise to
new meanings in the eventual output. Not all forms of hybridity are intentional and inherently
political as the example above, but the consequences of mimicry can be similar even for
unintentional expressions of hybridity.** A good example for this process is the imitation of a
common German fetishism: the love of cars. Coming mostly from backgrounds of the simple
life of the rural and least developed areas of Anatolia where such luxury was far beyond reach
for the vast majority, it became a great ambition of many of the initial guest workers to own a
big and fast car, just like the Germans. The brand of choice was usually a Mercedes ranking
highest in both quality and status. This led many of them to buy a 240D, a late-70s economy
model, mostly in horrendous colours such as azure or ochre. It seems that at this point in time
a large number of the first guest workers had earned enough money to be able to afford a car.
However, while Germans soon moved on to new models and other types of cars, the guest
workers could not afford to buy new cars every few years. The continuing presence of these
cars on German streets was and still is as, due to their high quality, some are still around a
constant reminder of the car fetish started in the years of Germanys rise to economic wealth.
**

cf. Werbner 2001 for the distinction between intentional and unintentional hybrids, which is a useful
addition to Bhabhas concept.

However, this case of almost the same, but not quite is more than a reminder: as many
Germans still practice this kind of fetishism, it also poses a subliminal provocation, especially
as it plainly states common socio-economic and structural power inequalities that would
otherwise be obscured.
Concluding Comments
I believe it is such subliminal provocations and anxieties about the loss of identity triggered
by the confrontation with hybrids and other others that cause the relapses into assimilationist
discourse so frequent in both Germany and Britain. However, the general practice of mimicry
and the unbounded, un-hierarchical nature of culture illustrate that there is no loss involved at
all. How can additional knowledge (e.g. of different types of headscarf) and why should
increase awareness of own practices (such as the German car fetish) threaten anyones
identity? If a meaningful discourse of integration, i.e. one that leaves behind assimilationist
demands as it promised from the outset, is to be achieved, the concept of cultural hybridity is
of great importance in identifying strategies to bring this about. Identifying the unbounded
nature of culture, rendering any numerical and hierarchical positioning of such nonsensical,
conceptualising, and thus making visible, the third space and the mechanisms and outcomes
of mimicry, the theoretical concept is indispensable in identifying practices and politics of
integration.

Bibliography
Bhabha, H. K. (2002) The Location of Culture, London: Routledge
(1998) Cultures in between in Bennett, D. (ed.), Multicultural States, London: Routledge
Brubaker, R. (1992) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, Cambridge (MA): Harvard
University Press
Horrocks, D. and Kolinsky, E. (1996) Turkish Culture in German Society Today, Providence and
Oxford: Berghahn Books
Kolinsky, E. (1996) Non-German Minorities in Contemporary German Society in Horrocks, D. and
Kolinsky, E., Turkish Culture in German Society Today, Providence and Oxford: Berghahn Books
Meredith, P. (1998) Hybridity in the Third Space: Rethinking Bi-cultural Politics in Aotearoa / New
Zealand, Paper presented to Te Oru Rangahau Maori Reseach and Development Conference, Massey
University, 7-9 July 1998
Terkessidis, M. (2000) Global Culture in Germany. Or: How Repressed Women and Criminals Rescue
Hybridity in Communal/Plural: Journal of Transnational & Cross-Cultural Studies, Vol. 8 (2),
pp.219-235
Werbner, P. and Modood, T. (2000) Debating Cultural Hybridity, London: Zed Books
Werbner, P. (2001) Limits of Cultural Hybridity: on Ritual Monsters, Poetic Licence and Contested
Postcolonial Purifications in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 7 (1), pp.133152
Wilpert, C. (1993) Ideology and Institutional Foundations of Racism in the Federal Republic of
Germany in Wrench, J. and Solomos, J. (eds) Racism and Migration in Western Europe, Oxford: Berg