英语论文网

erick expresses and voices his latent preconceptions he learnt from early narratives and previous films once facing a difficulty in one of the shots: “what the hell am I doing here in this country [Morocco]? Why didn’t I go to Israel, where people are more civilized , where people are less like-savages” (Beyond Casablanca, 44). Such discourse and many other abusive experiences have been reiterated throughout Anglo-American feature films portraying and fetishizing Moroccans.

This incident of J. Derick and A. Tazi’s relationship does emphasize the ambivalence of the Anglo-American film maker’s discourse. Working together to shot a film does not mean they are the same for J. Derick. Interrogating and disclosing such relation-ship between self/ J. Derick and Other/ A.Tazi within discourse, Bhabha uses the term “ambivalence” to criticize such binary opposition, which provides us with an argument that recognizes the other as different. One of them is given local priority and a positive value, while the other is characterized as the absence of the positive attributes of the first (I). The other is thus denied; he is merely a negation of the I / self. However, this binary opposition is violated when the white man exposes the inferiority of the native and describes him as being perfectly recognizable. Of course, this tendency to appropriate and make the native recognizable is just to contain his threat and retain control over him. The example of J. Derick recognition of A. Tazi shows that the native/ A. Tazi would resemble and duplicate the white man/ J. Derick, but without really erasing the traces of his difference completely. He is doomed to remain, in Bhabha’s phrase, “almost the same, but not quite.”(The Location of Culture, 86).

With Bhabha self and other are drawn into a Lacanian mirror-image, where the other becomes a confirmation of the white man’s image of “superiority”. A long with this line of thought, from the psycho-analysis point of view, it is apparent that “the illusory self-production (of the I ) is a denial of rationality, complexity and dependence on the other.”(Colonial Fantasies ,7-8).We can say that true recognition is achieved only from one part, whereas the other is excluded. In this view, Hegel asserts in his Phenomenology of Mind that “Self-consciousness in itself and for itself, in that and by the fact it exists for another self-consciousness; that is to say, it is only by being acknowledged or recognizable.”(cited in Black Skin, White Masks, 216)

From this passage, we see that the master for Hegel differs basically from the master/ J. Derick we are dealing with. For Hegel, there is a reciprocity between the master and the employee ; on the contrary, our master J. Derick “laughs at the consciousness” of A. Tazi. What he wants from him is not recognition but work; recognition between the two seems impossible. This action from one side only would be useless, in Hegel’s words, because what is to happen can only be brought about by means of both. In such a case, they would recognize themselves as mutually recognizing each other. Unlikely, our master will never be able to recognize the native as a full-fledged human being. The power of representation will never allow the master本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。