Dialogic Spaces: diasporic negotiation of difference

Journal of Postcolonial Cultures and Societies

ISSN No. 1948-1853

‘Dialogic Spaces: diasporic negotiation of difference’,

Ayman Abu-Shomar and Malcolm MacDonald.

JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

1

Dialogic Spaces: diasporic negotiation of difference

Ayman Abu-Shomar and Malcolm MacDonald

Abstract: In this paper, we explore the development of a critical pedagogy that disrupts

stereotypical and ethnocentric convictions and articulations of culture, identity, and the 'self'.

Drawing on the concepts of 'hybridity' and 'third space' (Bhabha 1994), 'diasporic philosophy',

and 'dialogism' after (Bakhtin 1981) , this paper explores the potential of 'Dialogic Spaces' (DS)

to open epistemological outlets that enable hybrid, diasporic thinking in order to deconstruct

dichotomising tendencies of thinking about difference. By contextualising dialogue in a wider

cultural inquiry, research participants were called to navigate between new and familiar

meanings and to recognize multiple and complex alternatives through the negotiations of cultural

difference, hybridity and diaspora. Such 'positioning' encouraged them to question categorical,

stereotypical, and hierarchical constructions of culture. In the creation of a third space, they came

to recognize the plurality of cultural meanings, thereby working against essentialist meaning-

making in such an interstitial space. They also came to acknowledge the legitimacy of the

meanings of the other as well as those of the self. This study addresses to the broader cultural

debate within postcolonial studies and critical pedagogy by raising awareness of cultural

diversity, identity and representations of self. In this way it offers an original contribution by

exploring intersecting areas of theory, so far believed to be discrete: diasporic philosophy, post-

colonialism and dialogism.

Key words: Culture, Postcolonialism, Hybridity, Third Space, Diaspora, Dialogism.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

2

Dialogic Spaces: diasporic negotiation of difference

Ayman Abu-shomar and Malcolm MacDonald

Introduction

Global capitalism and changes in the purpose and stance of knowledge have lead to increasingly

complex and challenging concepts for populations worldwide (Gur-Ze'ev 2005). In these „new

times‟(Hall 1996d), dramatic changes in the social, cultural, and economic spheres have led not

only to the fragmentation and growing pluralism of societies (Bauman 2000; Bauman and Tester

2001), but also to the emergence of new identities which render normative and stable meanings

and discourses problematic (Kocatepe 2005). However, there remains a possibility for a new

critical language and the potential for approaching truth along with the richness of life (Gur-

Ze'ev 2005). In this sense, the conditions of promoting critical cultural awareness and of

interpreting people‟s lives requires individuals to search for ways to challenge the stability of

meanings and consider new ways of thinking through which to engage with difference and

„otherness‟. Since their knowledge and perceptions of „culture‟ flow across national and cultural

boundaries, readers of the English literature canon, which lives on in post-colonial pedagogic

contexts such as Jordan(the current research context), inhabit conditions such as these. These

readers must negotiate the complexities of difference in the new cultural spaces which open up

between familiar and foreign meanings, relations, and identities. Their exposure to difference

via canonical literary texts that are conventionally underpinned by assumptions of „cultural

knowledge‟, essentialism, homogeneity, and stereotypes about the „self‟ and the „other‟ requires

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

3

these readers to develop a repertoire for interrogating and disrupting such monolithic realities

and recognising more complex and diverse alternatives. Thus, this paper attempts to explore the

possibilities that are available to readers of English literature in a cross-cultural context to

negotiate cultural difference. Specifically, we examine and analyse these students‟ engagement

with „Dialogic Spaces‟ (DS) to problematize normative assumptions of culture informed by

„canonical knowledge‟ (Abu-Shomar 2010) and practices. We also explore the possibility of

creating a third space, or multiple spaces, for them to negotiate and explore the complexity and

dynamicity of cultural meanings.

Theoretical perspective: constructing a scene1

For some time now in North America, Australia and the UK, the study of literature has become

superseded by cultural studies (Easthope 1991; Hall 2005); and on the arguments of

postcolonial theory, this „culture‟ is thought of as hybrid, contested, and in constant

(re)construction (Bhabha 1994), no longer a noun but a „verb‟ (Souza 2004). Therefore, just as

cultures „construct their meanings‟ (ibid), literature should be considered for its cultural as well

as its aesthetic impact (Easthope 1991; Eagleton 2008). The related assumption is that culture

and literature are highly interconnected in terms of how readers of English literature in post-

colonial contexts engage with „other‟ meanings disseminated through canonical literary texts

that construct mainstream cultural knowledge as the „norm‟ (Said 1978, 1994; Loomba 1998;

1 We use the metaphor “scene” in a post-structural sense to delineate the notions of constant and dynamic

emergence of „realities‟ that result from the unremitting interventional constructions and reconstructions of the

actualities of peoples‟ lives. In a similar manner, we approach the inquiry under investigation very much like

constructing a scene. We attempt to conceptualise this scene as an emergent one that results from our engagements

with theory and furthers our empirical investigation. In Part Two (the empirical intervention), we „manipulate‟ the

scene that we have „spoken into existence‟ in Part One (the theoretical). Rather than passively stepping into the

emergent scene, we disrupt it hoping further scenes emerge.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

4

McLeod 2000), which they are required to accept as assumed „truth‟ (Giroux 1992; Freire 1989;

Kocatepe 2005).

Drawing on the above, the proposal for 'Dialogic Spaces' draws its theoretical tenets by

carving out a middle way between wholesale 'diasporic philosophy', culturally-specific

'hybridity', and 'dialogism'. Adorno and Benjamin (quoted in Gur-Ze'ev 2005) insist that „there

is no cultural document that was not a manifestation of barbarism‟ (14), and approaching „truth‟

via ideology is problematic. For them, life-philosophy challenges all kinds of existential self-

evidence and philosophical self-contentment that effectively destroys or exiles the transcending

potential of human existence. Intimacy with self-evidence of the marginalized collectives is,

therefore, a closure of potential danger for the human spirit. Instead, the acknowledgment of

humans‟ homelessness and the denial of „home-returning‟ projects is the gateway to the

elaboration of possibilities for a worthwhile response. Building on the tenets of diasporic

philosophy, Gur-Ze‟ev proposes „Diasporic Response-Ability‟ (DRA) as a „gate to the

elaboration of possibilities for worthy response‟. DRA challenges being swallowed by all

„home-returning‟ appeals, all salvation/emancipation agendas, and educational projects that

offer to constitute the „I‟ via the „we‟ and the self-evident, true, or relevant values, truths ideals,

and strivings (18). Diasporic thinking acts as a gate that unbinds the mind from the monolith of

the „self‟ and the „other‟, and enables creative improvisations and births that make diaspora an

impetus to new possibilities for happiness, meaning, aim, and togetherness. Having no starting

point nor a „telos or territory‟ and „not being‟ at „home‟ at all costs, diasporic philosophy refuses

to be victimized by the „self-evidence‟, „self-content‟, and the negation of the „other‟. It refuses

„any identity thinking‟ in ontological, epistemological, ethical, existential, and political terms

(21-3).

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

5

Similarly, post-colonial discourse takes up the notion that any culture or identity is

disputable or rejected (Ashcroft et al. 1995). Bhabha makes us aware of the dangers of fixity and

fetishism of identities by arguing that “the intermediate spaces in-between subject-positions are

loaded as the locale of the disruption and displacement of hegemonic colonial narratives of

cultural structures and practices” (Meredith 1998: 2). Bhabha (1994) posits hybridity as a locus

of in-between space, where the cutting edge of translation and negotiation occurs.

The basic assumption of hybridity is that diversity replaces authenticity; confirming that

„cultures are inevitably hybridised‟ (Ashcroft et al. 1995), and that cultural amalgamation

through colonialism cannot be reversed, erased, or escaped (Sadiq 2007: 32). The idea of

hybridity is also positioned as an antidote to “the belief in invariable and fixed properties which

define the whatness of a given entity” (Fuss quoted in Meredith 1998: 2). The third space of

cultural hybridity is thus a position that brings cultural differences into creative contact. It is a

process of “amalgamation where the mind, conditioned by cross cultural contacts, can no longer

acquire cultural authenticity or return to the pure past” (Sadiq 2007: 33). Rutherford (quoted in

Meredith 1998: 3) takes up third space as intrinsically critical of essential positions of identity

and the conceptualisation of original or originary culture. The importance of hybridity is,

therefore, not to be able to trace two original moments from which the third space emerges; it is

the third space, which enables other positions to emerge. It is a mode of articulation which is not

only a reflective space that engenders new possibility, but also an “interruptive, interrogative,

and enunciative space of new forms of cultural meaning and production blurring the limitations

of existing boundaries and calling into question established categorisations of culture and

identity” (ibid 3). It is a unique „locus of enunciation‟ that goes beyond the realm of binary

thinking and oppositional positioning, providing a spatial politics of inclusion, rather than

exclusion, that “initiates new signs of identity and innovative sites of collaboration and

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

6

condensation” (Bhabha 1994: 1). In sum, positioned within a third space of enunciation, hybrid

existence is a „lubricant‟ in the conjunction of cultures. The hybrid‟s potential thus lies with its

innate knowledge of transculturation and its ability to “transverse both cultures and to translate,

negotiate and mediate affinity and difference within a dynamic of exchange and inclusion”

(Taylor quoted in Meredith 1998: 3). Hybrid existence further encodes a counter-hegemonic

agency and normalising ideologies, and opens up a third space of/for re-articulation and meaning

(Bhabha 1996).

Although Gur-Ze‟ev distances his particular critical stance from the post-colonialist

critical repertoire, taking the latter to be captivated by the rubrics of „positive utopia‟, politics of

difference, old-style nationalism, and cultural identity; many of his assumptions regarding

diaspora resonate with Bhabha‟s concepts of „hybridity‟ and „third space‟ which occupy „a

central place in post-colonial discourse‟ (Meredith 1998). These concepts, we argue, refer to the

interweaving elements and subject-positions that emerge from cultural interaction and diaspora.

Therefore, DS acknowledges the „humans‟ ontological diasporic existence‟ (Gur-Ze'ev 2005),

while taking up hybridity as an „antidote to essentialism‟ (Bhabha 1994); hence, it is a critical

stance that challenges „the validity and authenticity of any essentialist cultural identity‟

(Meredith 1998).

Diasporic philosophy and hybridity share a commanlity: their denial of essentialist

„belonging‟, purity, and authenticity of cultures. Diasporic philosophy emphasizes the idea of

metaphoric „homelessness‟ as an escape from the pleas for self-evidence and an authentic „I‟.

Similarly, hybridity takes up third space as an inevitable „in-between‟ position that rejects

„fixity‟, „fetishism‟, and „authenticity‟ of cultures. As such, both theories provide a theoretical

framework that perceives the „self‟ and the „other‟ as constructed on similar ground, and favours

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

7

„nomadism‟ and „dynamism‟ over „belonging‟ and „fixity‟. For diasporic philosophy, the total

rejection of „identity thinking‟ is met by an intermediate, dynamic, and emergent identity in

hybridity and third space. For Gur-Ze'ev, a diasporic eternal-improviser is never in danger of

being a controlled or swallowed up by the „system‟. Likewise, Bhabha (1994) acknowledges the

„multiple subject-positions‟ and aspirations contingent upon the ongoing cultural interaction and

exchange.

Border crossing and diasporic existence enable cultural, political, racial, national, and

gender differences to be hybridized in a third space from which a further ontological individual

could be created. Through reconfiguring the „self‟ and the „other‟, both intimacy and resistance

could be reconstructed, reshaped, and promoted at the same time. „Symptomatic of the

Enlightenment‟s failure‟, hybridity is a „conceptual inevitability‟ for the dynamics of culture and

a „site of democratic struggle and resistance against hegemonic cultures‟ (Kriady 2002: 310). By

displacing its racialized connotations to the semiotic field of culture, Bhabha celebrates it as the

resilience of the subaltern and as “the contamination of imperial ideology, aesthetics, and

identity” (ibid: 319). Similarly, DRA makes diaspora an impetus for creative improvisation by

acknowledging „homelessness, meaninglessness and suffering‟ (Gur-Ze'ev 2005). Thus

celebrating the potential of the subaltern despite his/her inability to speak (Bhabha 1994; Spivak

1991) is met by Gur-Ze‟ev‟s potential for having no starting point or territory. In this way, both

the diasporic-improviser and the hybridized individual and resist being enslaved by the

Enlightenment and instrumental rationality.

Dialogism

In so far as hybridized, diasporic spaces constitute a mode of being, knowing, and thinking, such

spaces cannot exist in monolithic discourses, dualistic binaries, or dichotomized modes of

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

8

interaction. „Third-space positing‟ requires a radical mode of engagement with the „other‟ as a

potential source of meaning. In this respect, Bakhtin‟s (1981) dialogism can operate as a radical

mode of constructing knowledge through „dialogic interaction‟.

The basic assumption of dialogics is that the meaning of an utterance emerges from its

construction within a dialogue, and understanding any utterance requires considering past ones

that it responds to as well future ones that it anticipates. Such a simple claim, according to

Wegerif (2008) has „radical implications‟: firstly, “when a speaker produces an utterance at least

two voices can be heard simultaneously” (Wertsch quoted in Wegerif 2008: 349). Secondly, “the

meaning of an utterance is not reducible to the intentions of the speaker or to the response of the

addressee but emerges between these two” (ibid: 349). Thirdly, the significance given to an

utterance determined by its past is no more stable than the significance it may be given in the

future. For example, the fact that each generation of scholars revisits and reinterprets textual

fragments from ancient Greece illustrates that no final or fixed interpretation of a text could be

established. Building on this, Markova and Sidorkin (quoted in Wegerif 2008) point out that

dialogics steps beyond epistemology into the realm of ontology, which “implies that meaning

cannot be grounded upon any fixed or stable identities but is the product of difference” (349),

and hence comprises a “radical challenge to the monologic assumptions of modernism in general

and of dialectic in particular” (348).

Building on this, an understanding of the „self‟ in simple terms of self-identity is not possible

since “a human being never coincides with himself, and the formula of identity „A is A‟ is not

applicable to him” (Bakhtin quoted in Wegerif 2008: 350). The basic nature of humans is "not

self-identity but the opening of dialogue, an opening which always implies the simultaneous

inter-animation of more than one voice" (350). Dialogic relationships shape the nature of

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

9

knowledge in a mediatory triangle of the „self-other-sign‟. Human learning takes place within

these dialogic human relations and all parties in a dialogue are invited to see things differently at

once: “for each participant in a dialogue the voice of the other is an outside perspective that

includes them within it. The boundary between subjects is not, therefore, a demarcation line, or

an external link between self and other, but an inclusive 'space' of dialogue within which self and

other mutually construct and reconstruct each other" (353).

„Dialogic negotiations of difference‟ (Dunlop 1999) explore the perspectives of critical

consciousness to question the dichotomising tendencies of thinking about cultural difference and

challenge the hegemony of frozen and dogmatic conceptions allowing the supercession of

dualistic and monolithic ways of thinking. In this sense, it aims to „articulate the meaning of

people‟s ideas ... in hope of learning not just who these others are but who [we ourselves] may

be, not just what others may mean but [we ourselves] may mean among others‟ (Bakhtin quoted

in Stockholder et al. 1987: 832). Dialogue destabilizes the „selfhood‟ and the authentic „I‟ as a

firm way to read the „other‟. Merritt (1987) contends that dialogue urges us to read for an

opening in the discussion or a provocation to further discourse. Bakhtin further argues:

we would self-consciously represent the voice-ideas of others and involve others

in dialogues they had not anticipated; […] we would also self-consciously

expect unexpected replies and foresee unforeseen uses of our own words and

ourselves by others; [and] we would be more likely than others to recognise how

even an admirer's repetition of our words may embarrass in the most alien terms

may convert us (in Merritt 1987: 830).

Furthermore, dialogics enables language to become more than a medium of

communication, instruction, or dialogue. It becomes a mode of interaction vis-à-vis an

exploration of difference, critical reflection, and consistent revision of one‟s own subject

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

10

positions where „double-voiced‟ rather than „single-voiced‟ discourse is enabled (Bakhtin 1986).

In „single-voiced‟ discourse, the speakers adhere to their own viewpoint, paying no attention to

the possibly of conflicting voices, and without attempting to perceive themselves as others see or

hear them, while „double-voiced‟ discourse calls for the social construction of „the self in

relation‟ where speakers see the „self‟ not as a signifier of one „I‟, but the coming together of

many „I‟s‟. Thus both intra- and inter-subjective voices are made possible (hooks 1984).

In sum, for a post-colonial world to sustain a diasporic, hybridized and dialogic stance, it

becomes crucial that critical projects are framed by assumptions of multiple cultural possibilities

practiced through the creation of dynamic and multiple spaces. DS offers the post-colonial

subject the potential to cross from the colonized „self‟ to an understanding of a post-colonial

„other‟. Such a process requires an engagement in a dialogue (with the text and beyond) that is

not merely cognitive, but also participatory and contextual. Through engaging in a dialogic,

participatory process of knowing, the hybrid, diasporic post-colonial learner is enabled to

transcend „the cultural constellations‟ or „force-fields‟ that shape colonial binaries. Recognising

the complexities of cultural representations, DS emphasizes a „process‟ rather than „destination‟

and the ever changing over the static stance of knowledge. It pays attention to the mediator or

interpreter, rather than what it is pointing to and ostensibly avoids the essentialising of

difference, with all that this entails politically and culturally (Murray quoted in Moore 1994: 22).

Such readers are able to link the text ethically to its context by acknowledging new cross-cultural

connections.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

11

A case study of DS-interventional pedagogy: (‘manipulating’ the scene)

Context, methods, and sampling

Education is a crucial ideological apparatus through which certain values are asserted as the best

or most true (Gur-Ze'ev 2005). During the era of colonialism, educational institutions were

deployed across empire to augment the perceived legitimacy and propriety of colonial rule and to

help maintain its power (McLeod 2000: 141). Even today, a substantial remainder of these

educational sites still largely retain such ideologies (Mulenga 2001). The context of empirical

inquiry presented in this paper is Jordan, which fell under a British mandate from its

establishment until 1957 and has preserved much of the colonial legacy ever since (Zughoul

1986, 1999). Although worldwide, previously colonized territories have largely regained their

political independence, their educational institutions and other social spheres (political,

economic) remain tainted with European modernism and still work within a Western

infrastructure. For McQuaid (2009), „racialised thinking‟ remains one of the most perilous of

these colonial legacies. „Racialised thinking‟, according to her, refers to a generally accepted

standard in cultural discourse, education practice, and theory. Willinsky (1998) asserts that the

construction of ideas such as race has been perpetuated from colonial eras, and these have

influenced our tendency to divide the world and reinforce the notion of Western cultural

superiority, which “had a profound influence on education past and present and on the future for

education systems” (12).

This „dialogic‟ interventional study for reading and interpreting a canonised literary text

was conducted in an English department in a Jordanian university using a case study approach

(Guba and Lincoln 1985; Merriam 2001, Denzin and Lincoln, 2005; Bloor and Wood, 2006;

Creswell, 2007). The data used in this paper comes from a wider research project that explored a

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

12

plethora of related issues such as institutional behaviour regarding the Jordanian literary canon

and the students‟ responses to this institutional „canonical culture‟ (Abu-Shomar, 2010). Sixteen

undergraduate students were „purposefully‟ (Barbour 2001; Taylor 2007; Pallant, 2007;

Maxwell, 2002) selected as participants. In the first part of the study (Mode One), the students

were assigned into four groups to dialogue, negotiate and analyse a text, „Heart of Darkness‟,

with which they were obliged to engage on their programme of study as a remainder from the

canon within the repertoire of DS. In the second part (Mode Two), the students carried out a

dialogic approach to a plethora of issues concerning their understanding of culture. They

concluded this part with personal narratives and reflections about their formal literary education

and current experience. While participant observation through classroom discussion and

narrative accounts were both used as data, the seminar discussions that constituted the DS-based

intervention remained the main method we employed to gather data regarding the constructions

of culture inferred from the students' dialogic textual interpretations, as well as their reflections

on their literary education and life in general. Other canonical texts, including Shakespearian

plays such as The Merchant of Venice, also led to extensive discussions amongst the students

which relate to the theme of this paper. All the students gave their informed consent and

participated in the study voluntarily.

During the intervention, the first author (Abu-Shomar) was a visible participant in the

classroom. He engaged in dialogic discussions of the text at hand and surveyed the students'

comments and responses. In this respect the very act of observation of participation entails self-

reflexivity in research and a move away from conceptualising research as an 'objectifying

methodology' to an understanding of research as 'an intersubjective methodology' (Tedlock,

2000: 471). In the final sessions of the seminar, the students were asked to provide personal

narratives about both their current experience and their formal education in terms of their

perceptions of different cultural and educational issues discussed in the previous sessions. We

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

13

see personal narrative and story-telling as an emancipatory approach in which the students

unfolded themselves while narrating their personal and academic experience. The students'

narratives emerged in a context of conversation and story-telling. The context was carefully

crafted by the students and us to fulfil our emancipatory aim. We, as a group, were meeting for

the purpose of pursuing issues around the students' literary education and to provide intellectual

and moral support to each other. In this sense, their narratives would not be distorted by fear of

negative consequences regarding what is said. These conversations and stories were satisfying

both as ends in themselves and as means to better understanding and for providing solutions of

the current situation (McEwan 1997).

Our analysis of students‟ interaction was informed by the works of Linell (2009),

Markova (2003), and Werstch (1993), which assume that human communication entails the

interaction of diverse perspectives, and is embedded in a socio-historical context. Linell (2009),

for example, argues that the importance of adopting dialogic analysis as an interpretative

methodology lies in its close analysis of either spoken or written transactions or utterances for

their embedded communicative significance. We take up the assumption that the meaning of

dialogic utterance is mediated between those it responds to and those it anticipates (Wegerif

2008). Therefore, the basic unit of analysis is the transaction: the involvement of two or more

parties reciprocally affecting or influencing each other‟s worldviews. In this respect, we adopt a

post-structuralist approach to analysis and meaning-making (SØndergaad 2002). A post-

structuralist analytical focus aims to investigate the ways in which subjects take up and further

develop various subject positions in their everyday, and within the repertoires of 'self' that the

subjects have already acquired.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

14

Ethical considerations

Research into human life is generally subject to one major ethical issue: the potential

harm it may cause the participants through the researcher's intervention. Related to this is the

participants' confidentiality, acknowledgement, autonomy (their right to withdraw at any stage of

the study) and their right of informed consent (Esterberg, 2002; Pring, 2004; Ezzy, 2002; BERA,

2004). Therefore, several ethical considerations have been taken into consideration in the course

of the study. We obtained the participant‟s informed consent, and maintained their

confidentiality when sharing their views, and exercised caution around any ethical issues that

arose in the study. Specifically, we have approached the participants with respect and paid

attention to meet their expectations of privacy, confidentiality, and safety. When we invited them

to participate in the study, we tried to minimize chances for intimidation since after introducing

the study, the students‟ lecturers left the classroom so the students will be able to freely choose

whether to take part in the study. We also made it explicit that all the participants understand and

agree to the process in which they will be engaged and that their participation will be voluntary.

Additionally, in the course of our intervention, we made every possible effort to prioritise

the students' rights against any potential harm. Therefore, in our response to Pring's (2004)

question, "Does the researcher have to balance the right to know against the possible harm which

might follow from the conduct … and dissemination of the research?" (p.148), we recognised

our 'right to know' as potentially counterproductive. With the belief that it might bring harm to

participants, we have prioritised their right over any other considerations. At the outset of our

work with them, we fully disclosed relevant information, including the purpose of the study, our

intent, and their right of privacy. During our conversation with both groups, we maintained a

professional demeanour and attempted to minimise any possible reactions on our side to their

ideas and comments. Additionally, in the presentation of the data, we used pseudonym names to

assure the confidentiality of the participants.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

15

Diasporic/hybrid constructions of culture; (re-interpreting the scene)

As can be inferred, the nature of this study is „hybrid‟ in the sense that it combines an

exploration of the question at hand at two levels; theoretical and empirical. We approach the

inquiry under investigation very much like constructing a scene. We attempt to conceptualize

this scene as an emergent one that results from our engagements with theory and our further

empirical investigation. In Part Two (the empirical), we „manipulate‟ the scene that we have

„spoken into existence‟ in Part One (the theoretical). As such, rather than passively stepping into

the emergent scene, we disrupt it through DS-intervention hoping further scenes emerge.

Although the theoretical and empirical levels of investigation are intertwined, we opt to report

the findings in two separate sections to maintain fluidity of the reading in terms of the areas of

investigation addressed in the study.

The overall aim of the DS intervention was to disrupt and problematize the students‟

essentialized constructions of culture and to help them recognize the value of other spaces as loci

of enunciation. We also invited them to disrupt social and cultural constructions that produce

stereotypical knowledge about the „other‟. In this section, we report how the students

problematize these assumptions and trace signs of hybrid and multiple meanings, specifically

those regarding the „self' and the 'other' co-constructions. We also map out the ways they

recognize multiple spaces as perspectives from which they enunciate and voice their views and

criticisms, and hence promote critical realisations of culture. In their seeking of the intersections

between cultures, the students attempted to contextualize how we challenged textual knowledge

by drawing a connection between the textual (mis)representations and other sources of

knowledge, such as local cultural knowledge. They also searched for the 'crossing points' of

cultures and areas of 'in between spaces' in which to resist hegemonic and stereotypical

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

16

discourses of cultural representations, thus exonerating the „self's‟ position while enunciating its

critical accounts of ethnocentric and dogmatic assumptions.

One of the students, Sura for example, seeks a meeting point for cultures where she can

recognize areas of mutual understanding. In her narrative, Sura rejects living in isolation without

learning about other cultures:

we cannot put ourselves in a closed box and never add to our knowledge/ it is not

necessary that I should follow other cultures but to know about them/ I mean to be like a

universal person/ I mean beside having my own resources/ I am proud of being a Muslim/

we may have lots of common things with other cultures/ we may meet in the middle of

the road (Group 3, Students' Narratives).

For her, this is not an act of renouncing her own culture - she is „proud of being a Muslim‟; but

‘knowing and understanding other cultures‟ positions her as a „universal person‟. Thus,

knowledge about other cultures allows her to „meet with these cultures in the middle of the road‟.

The expressions Sura uses are highly metaphorical -„closed box‟, ‘the universal person‟, and

‘middle of the road‟ - and mark a realisation of the value of being open to the 'other', which

implies a disposition to hybrid thinking. In this way, she recognizes the moderate position as an

area where she can enunciate her views regarding both her culture and other cultures. Yet, she is

very clear, confident, and „comfortable‟ in expressing such position. Therefore, besides being

„proud of being a Muslim‟, and „having her own resources‟, she endeavours to be open to other

cultures, since she believes that all cultures „have things in common‟. Such a state of being, we

argue, allows cultural exchange, yet not through multiple inputs but as a reciprocal share of give

and take between cultures.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

17

Isra, unlike Sura, oscillates between social boundaries and traditions and a search for 'new'

possible „ways of life‟:

I think we Arabs live inside ourselves/ we can‟t hear but ourselves/ as Anas said, I accept

things which suit me and reject things which are unsuitable for me/ but sometimes I get into

things which are against our traditions but I find them acceptable/ I do not mean traditions but

ways of life/ Ok, I will talk frankly/ for example, I spend two or three hours chatting with my

friends in the internet/ this may be against our traditions, because I am a girl/ but for me, I

think it is acceptable (Group 2, Students‟ Dialogues).

Here, Isra tentatively talks about social traditions and reflects on the ways in which she

antagonizes her own social traditions. Her remark, „I do not mean traditions but ways of life‟,

reflects a cautious articulation of her views regarding sensitive matters, like traditions, since for

her as a young Arab Muslim woman, she believes that having a chat on the internet with friends

violates tradition. She is caught in a double-bind, since while she seeks to resist aspects of her

traditions by being open to other ways of life she seems hesitant to voice this resistance. Isra

covets the freedom to be herself and to have her own way of conducting her life, but she has

conscious thoughts which inform her moral conduct, her culture. Adopting a dual position of

cleaving from and to other cultures (Boehmer 2005), particularly Western cultures, suggests a

conflictual state of being for making compromises: moving away from cultural bounds,

transgressing the boundaries of cultural informed behaviours, and in order to do this,

appropriating other cultural discourses, definitions, and perhaps ideologies (Zubair 2006). Isra in

her cross-cultural contact becomes occupied in „in-between spaces‟.

Isra and other students alike negotiated different meanings and identities in spaces of

conflict. In their creation of a third spaces, they were caught in 'split perceptions' (Lacan quoted

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

18

in Verhaeghe 1998) that pull them in two opposite directions. However, the creation of these

spaces is significant in suggesting that these students attempt to coexist with difference by

enunciating other, 'new', sorts of meaning. They seek further spaces to appropriate these

meanings in a new language and discourse. Such a search addresses the „infinity of the moment

in its endless creative possibilities‟ (Gur-Ze'ev 2005), and encourages a negotiation amongst

discursive subject-positions. This negotiation thus becomes a „border land‟ where multiple

subject-positions or „the split subject that is divided against itself‟ (Lacan quoted in Verhaeghe

1998) dislocate the belief of stable and essential meanings that challenge the exoticism of the

„other‟ and denaturalise norms of the „self‟.

Furthermore, the students attempted to cross towards the culture of the 'other'. While

„cleaving to‟ (Boehmer 2005) Western cultures delineates a split-position in search for cultural

difference, the tendency to move towards other cultures particularly those seen as being of an

inferior status, seems to evoke feelings of sympathy (Kouritzin, 2004).. In their conversation,

both Anas and Islam are approaching the idea of understanding other cultures in the course of

reflecting on textual representations. However, their reference to Buddhism and the way they

express their understanding of the „other‟ is useful for tracing how the students talk about

cultures of the „Third World‟. Islam expresses sympathy with Buddhism: „those people who

believe in it [Buddhism], they think it‟s right as we think that our religion is the right/ I respect

their beliefs because they believe in them‟ (G2, S5). Whereas their views towards Western

cultures denote a conflict between two dispositions, the students straightforwardly articulate their

positions towards Buddhist culture. Islam‟s argument and defence of Buddhism is a valuable

articulation of resistance of cultural „knowledge‟, and hence a possibility of cultural

understanding. Although she explicitly states her position in „I don‟t have to believe in them‟,

she accentuates her understanding and respect of the Buddhists‟ beliefs. Since understanding is

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

19

not necessarily equivalent to adoption, which Islam evinces, this view registers a quality of

critical approach to understanding other cultures in the ways members of these cultures perceive

their beliefs, which resists culturally informed ways of seeing the „other‟ in their own terms.

While Islam does not talk about affiliating with those she defends, Hiba adopts a similar

discourse about the way she understands the „other‟, but with a disposition to adopt „lots‟ from

these other cultures:

I think that we should take good things from powerless societies as well as from powerful

societies/ I had a friend from Sudan/ Sudan, according to us, is less powerful or less civilised

country/ I took a lot from her culture/ you know, from her habits / there is no harm to take

from both/ whether it is from an African country or from a European country (Group 4,

Students' Narratives).

„Powerless and less civilised country‟ is Hiba‟s view of Sudan, an African country, albeit she has

a friend from that country whose culture „she took a lot from‟. Although, apparently a

contradictory discourse, her honesty is unquestionable. In reference to being open to other

cultures in both two directions along the spectrum of perceived civilisation, Hiba demonstrates

confidence in her views, which might register another case towards crossing the lines of cultures.

This appears from the way she states her views, which are registered at two moments of

enunciation: „we should take … as from powerful societies, and there is no harm to take from

both‟. Her reference to her friend, the Sudanese girl, implies that the reciprocity, communication,

and personal knowledge that come out of this friendship could enable a better understanding of

and openness to other cultures. Overall, Hiba‟s introduction of this personal experience is a sign

of moving towards progressive unprejudiced thought.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

20

Nonetheless, although this might be taken up as an argument for personal relations rather

than collectivities, it is our contention that interpersonal relations could challenge collective

ones. The „self‟/„other‟ relation is constituted within wider collectivitities, and interpersonal

relations are bound up with the „institution‟, where „institution‟ is defined as „the structure of

living together as this belongs to historical community – people, nation, region, and so forth – a

structure irreducible to interpersonal relations‟ (Ricoeur in MacDonald and O‟Regan 2009: 10),

or recognized as „culture‟ (MacDonald and O‟Regan 2009). An institutional culture is deemed as

a unit of shared ethical purpose or „mores‟, and ‟the good life is not confined to interpersonal

relations but broadens out to the public sphere‟ (ibid: 10). Bringing this argument into the

discussion of the students' realisation of the third space, we aim to highlight the possibility that

interpersonal relations could be a possible source of disrupting the „norms‟ of collective and

institutional ethics towards the „other‟. The constitution of the „self‟ category or the „I‟, which is

necessarily ethical (Foucault 1981), is born with a „diasporic response ability‟, however, it is

systematized and productivitized according to institutional collectivities (Gur-z'eve 2005).

Therefore, the emancipatory DS project is to challenge such productivatisation by disrupting and

loosening the „norms‟ of collectivities through regaining the „diasporic response ability‟, which

qualifies the ethical „I‟, hence, an ethical purpose towards the „other‟. Interpersonal relations, as

in Hiba‟s case, could therefore be recognized as a „key‟ step towards holding ethical purpose or

„mores‟ towards the „other‟.

Additionally, the students demonstrated resistance to the knowledge provided of 'self's' and the

'other's' cultures. One of the aims of the study was to challenge culturally informed and

reproduced knowledge, as embodied in the search for an authentic „I‟, and the dogmatic sense of

belonging. Cultural „knowledge‟, as understood here, is not informed by a particular culture, but

by the notion of culture itself that informs knowledge. Cultural „knowledge‟, we argue, is a

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

21

potential source of binary discourse that limits the understanding of the „other‟. With this

purpose in mind, we have maintained an on-going challenge to initiate „crises‟ (Souza 2007) in

the students‟ 'norms', worldviews and sentiments they attempt to understand the „other‟. With

this open-ended approach, we do not claim for an alternative position or other „grounds‟ to be

taken up as a place to enunciate their worldviews. Instead, we sought for the diasporic state of

being that enables „diasporic response ability‟ as an approach of ever-changing and dynamic

production of knowledge and realities. Tariq, for example, narrates his experience and reflection

of the nature of our search for meanings:

we are fluctuating and sometimes we are very close to a certain idea, so once we try to settle

our understanding or interpretations, we discover that we are challenged with that

settlement/… it is a kind of reading that is provoking all the time‟ (Group 2, Students'

Narratives).

The issue of representation, a recurring theme in our discussions, appeared to be useful in

exploring the students‟ views regarding culturally informed knowledge as well as their resistance

to this knowledge. For example, the students' dialogue over Shakespeare's representation of

Shylock in The Merchant of Venice shows two levels of resistance and problematisation to

culturally informed „knowledge‟:

Hamza: I agree with him [Shakespeare] by choosing a Jew for this character [Shylock]

Muhammad: why a Jew? I think the choice for being a Jew is similar to a choice of being

a Muslim/ Shakespeare wants to convey an idea but I think he isn‟t fair in his choice/ he

tries to say that this character represents Judaism…

Ali: … before or after detaching myself? I can‟t say yes or no, if I say absolutely yes,

then I am attaching myself… I will never judge/ after all, I have to be neutral when I read

this/ but for this particular example, I can‟t help it

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

22

Muhammad: suppose that Shakespeare chooses a Muslim instead of a Jew

Ali: look at the cartoons about the prophet Muhammad/ do you agree with this?

Hamza: of course no

Muhammad: not as a Muslim, suppose you are a Christian, or a Buddhist, do you agree

with this?

I: let‟s put Shylock and Othello in the same boat/ what can you say?

Said: in the case of Othello, Shakespeare is biased towards the whites and he chooses

Othello as a black to say that black people are killers, savages, uncivilised and sexually

violent/ Shylock is Jewish and Shakespeare wants to tell us that Jewish people are greedy

…

Hamza: the problem is not dealing with „rebba‟/ they have no mercy at all/ he wants to

kill someone

I: who said that?

Muhammad: Shakespeare is the maker of the whole thing/ so he can make him anything

(Session 2, Group 1).

Muhammad expresses the most liberal views towards the „other‟ and marks a salient move

towards resisting cultural representations, whether those of Shakespeare or of the other students.

His initial defence implies a reference to a dualistic approach, while assuming the „self‟ in a

distinct location from the „other‟, which appears in his remark „choice for being a Jew as similar

to a choice of being a Muslim‟, and when he asks Ali to imagine Shakespeare had used a

„Muslim instead of a Jew‟. However, he goes beyond bisected comparisons of the „self‟ and the

„other‟ through unifying the „other‟ and the „self‟ as one entity when he adjusts his question into

„not as a Muslim suppose you are a Christian, or a Buddhist‟. Additionally, he demonstrates a

grasp of the implications of the idea of stereotypical assumptions, which is implied in his

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

23

analysis and judgement of Shakespeare‟s play. Although he implies his approval of the idea

Shakespeare desires to „convey‟ about „rebba‟, or human greed, but by „choosing this character’

which represents a group of people „he isn‟t fair in his choice, since this character represents

Judaism‟. Muhammad makes a valiant effort to defend his views, which makes him an

exceptional case in this situation.

Ali, who appears to resist Shakespeare‟s representation of Shylock, might be taken as an

outstanding case regarding how cultural knowledge is involved in the students‟ moral

judgements as well as their attempt to resist this involvement. Although he demonstrates an

understanding of Shakespeare‟s representations, he appears to resist articulating this judgement.

Rather than expressing his view, he prefers to „be neutral‟ especially „for this particular example‟

because he „can‟t help it‟, therefore, he „will never judge‟. Ali‟s preference for neutrality, just

„for this example in particular‟, is an implicit reference to a culturally perceived assumption

about the Jews as people who are unprincipled in their financial matters. It also might be a

reference to the current political dispute between the Arabs and the Israelis over the question of

Palestine. Whichever it is, his response indicates how society institutionalizes his judgements.

Additionally, by recalling „the cartoons about the prophet Muhammad‟, he demonstrates his

disapproval of stereotypical representations, which implies that, in principle, he realizes how

culture informs stereotypical „knowledge‟ about the „other‟. However, to apply this principle to

„Shylock and the Jews example‟ remains an issue for him, which signifies that the „self‟ and the

„other‟ divide is not a matter of knowledge, but a matter of how and where this knowledge is

applied, and what informs its application (Said 1978).

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

24

Recognising new meanings

In resisting static forms of knowledge and recognising the dynamicity of meanings, the students

demonstrate the potential to go beyond „one version‟ of seeing themselves and the world around

them. This entails promoting spaces in-between fixed and familiar meanings and discourses and

opening up new spaces that allow them to surpass hierarchical categorisations of the „self‟ and

the „other‟. Here we refer to the concept of third space not only as third space, but we also view

it as an emergent or itinerant space, „nomadic‟ and „diasporic‟ (Gur-Ze'ev 2005). Therefore, third

space could also be a number of multiple co-constructed spaces, a „myriad of potential changes‟

(Kramsch 1993a: 234) where meanings are enunciated. Tracing the signs of those hybrid spaces,

we focus on how the students approach cultural difference, diaspora, and on the ways they

negotiate and narrate new meanings in their search for 'comfortable' positions between the

already familiar and the newly available meanings. In our choice of the word 'comfortable', we

aim to underline that hybrid, dialogic positions or spaces are free of dispute or conflict; places

where one goes beyond dichotomising and pervasive polarising tendencies into harmonious and

dialogic understandings.

For example, Shahd exemplifies the creation of such spaces in her attempt to discover new

meanings in old, familiar concepts. In her metaphoric journey out of the borders of the space

where people are familiar with the concept of ‘hijjab’, she imagines other spaces where she

recognizes the possibility of other meanings of her „hijjab‟:

by communicating with other cultures, we can see in moral critical ways/ for example, when I

travel from my country and live in another, I discover what is not valid for all people/ we

don‟t see ourselves unless someone leads us to do so/ when I do something in my country, I

say it is our traditional way of doing things, but when I travel to another country, people will

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

25

ask me why do you do that/ for example, why do you wear „hijjab‟/ I ask myself why do I do

these things/ I may find doing these things just a habit not necessarily to be true or valid to

these people (G4, S6).

Here Shahd is making sense of her habit of wearing „hijjab‟ beyond an „us/them‟ „divide‟, from a

space where the „other‟ is no longer an adversary or opponent. She appears to have taken up

other spaces in-between her normative assumptions and knowledge about her „hijjab‟ and her

understanding of the way the „other‟ perceives this custom. We recognize that these new spaces

are 'comfortable' (Kocatepe 2005) because Shahd does not appear to be in conflict with either

familiar or new meanings that might come out of being in these new spaces. Additionally, she

recognizes the difference between these spaces not as conflicting meanings, but as new additions

to the existing ones. She also realizes the „other‟s meanings which are new to her as ways

through which she could discover the validity of her previous meanings. In this sense, Shahd

recognizes the „other‟ as an existing „other‟ without trying to assimilate this „other‟ in her „self‟s‟

culture. She sees this „other‟ as an existing „entity‟, although different from herself, his or her

meanings are accepted. Shahd‟s imaginative travelling to another country enables her diasporic

and hybrid meaning „making‟. Finding a space „in-between‟ cultures allows her to critically

rethink the familiar and to realize that systems of knowledge and world views are not totalising,

whole, or pure, but incomplete, muddled, and hybrid. It also suggests that we live in a world of

immense possibility and that new knowledges and ways of seeing can be constructed out of the

scraps of the authority of older ideas of rootedness and fixity (McLeod 2000).

Another example of the students‟ creation of comfortable spaces appears in their attempts

to make sense of the blurring boundaries that divide local and global contexts. Anas‟s reference

to internet and communication implies the notion of „new times‟ (Hall 1996d) where cultures are

becoming hybrid and dynamic and boundaries that separate people are melting. Anas is aware

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

26

that with „increasing global networking and cultural exchange the boundaries that divide people

are weakened and he seems content with the weakening divisions‟. We understand Anas‟s

discourse as suggesting that he makes sense of the world around him, from a space in which the

„other‟ is no longer bizarre or strange. His reference to Doa‟s view that we „are living in a small

village‟, which implies that he recognizes the „other‟ not as exotic, but people with whom he

could communicate. Furthermore, this could suggest that the other students who provide similar

opinions realize that in times of increased global networking, literary texts cannot be assumed to

delineate a local context, as if free of traces of globalisation. This, arguably, reflects that the

creation of spaces in-between his former and normative assumptions about the „other‟ as strange

and unusual, can ease Anas‟s „nomadic‟ travel between foreign and familiar territories.

Furthermore, this could suggest that Anas and Doa and the other students who provide similar

opinions realize that in times of an increase of global networking, literary texts cannot be

assumed to delineate to local context, as if free of traces of globalisation. This suggests that these

students are making sense of the text, discourse, and difference in spaces where they recognize

that globalisation infiltrates local contexts and where local practice and expectations underpin

global understanding. Recognising the world within such globalized-local spaces could facilitate

their navigation between the already existing views and the new worldviews about the self and

the „other‟.

In search for these spaces which could exist in the blurring lines of cultures, we recognize

Islam‟s favouring of the „grey area‟ as a dialogic area, which surpasses binary and dualistic

approaches to the „other‟: „but there is always a grey area where there is no white or black/where

people could live in peace and which I like to see‟ (G2, S3). We recognize in Islam‟s view a

dialogic and hybrid interaction through which she sees a promotion for peace between people of

different races. In fact she does not favour the idea of talking about races as disparate categories,

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

27

but rather as „grey area‟ wherein all races could be located. We realize Islam‟s position is a

dialogic moment which challenges the monologic assumptions of modernist thinking in general

and of dialectic and dualistic thinking in particular (Wegerif 2008). Such an approach to the

„self‟ and the „other‟ as one unit, we argue, touches the critical consciousness of the dialogic

negotiation of difference, which problematizes the dichotomising tendencies of thinking about

race difference. Islam‟s critical consciousness echoes the third space, where she transcends the

dualistic binaries of white/black into the „amalgam‟ of races, an area where the „self-othering‟

could be created. Such a creation, which she articulates as the „grey area that always exists‟,

seems to reflect a form of diasporic and nomadic thinking where the idea of belonging to one

culture or race disappears.

Conclusions: Exploring students' disruptions of essentialized constructions of culture

The study has explored the assumption that engaging students with a DS-informed intervention

could create a sense of „difference‟ through third space creation and dialogic negotiation. The

claim was that hybrid, diasporic and dialogic engagement with the tenets of the „self‟ and the

„other‟ would raise the students‟ awareness of the value of third space positioning and loosen

their adherence to essentialized constructions of culture. The examples above illustrate the ways

in which the creation of DS provided them with means to interrogate commonly held

assumptions of culture and identity in cross-cultural contacts.

The study also explored the assumption that the spaces of meaning-making that the

students created in their dialogic interactions can problematize the essentialized constructions of

culture and can facilitate their negotiations of new and existing cultural repertoires. The findings

suggested that the DS-based textual engagement created opportunities for some students to

recognize the inherent multiplicity of cultural meanings that stereotypes fail to capture. Some

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

28

students recognized that the potential of third spaces are both critical and „comfortable‟ (Dyenka

1999; Kocatepe 2005). In this space, they recognized the plurality of cultural meanings, which

are hybrid and diasporic in nature, thereby working against essentialism. We argue after

Kocatepe (2005) that meaning-making in interstitial spaces highlights the legitimacy of the

„other‟s‟ meanings as well as the students‟ own, which encouraged them to challenge the

normativity of cultural meanings. However, the findings also suggest some students are not

comfortable with the multiplicity of cultural meanings. These students negotiated different

meanings and identities in spaces of conflict. In their creation of third spaces, they were caught

in „split perceptions‟ that pull them in two opposite directions. However, we have argued that the

creation of such hybrid spaces is also significant in suggesting that these students attempt to

coexist with difference by enunciating another sort of „new‟ meaning. In their search to de-

exoticize difference, the students demonstrated a state of contestation or a „double bind‟ between

the new and the familiar meanings. However, they sought for further spaces to appropriate these

meanings in a new language and discourse. Such a search addresses the „infinity of the moment

in its endless creative possibilities‟ (Gur-Ze'ev 2005), and encourages a negotiation amongst

discursive subject-positions. This negotiation thus becomes a „border land‟ where multiple

subject-positions or „the split subject that is divided against itself‟ (Lacan quoted in Verhaeghe

1998) dislocates the belief in stable and essential meanings that challenge the exoticism of the

„other‟ and denaturalise norms of the „self‟.

In sum, DS enabled the students to develop a response vis-à-vis „nexus of interaction‟

through which they trace a path through the text to context, and thence to participation with

relevant textual and extra-textual concerns. The students‟ dialogic engagement promoted the

'nexus of interaction' (Wertsch 1991; Al-Qur'an 2006). A sceptical attitude encouraged students

not only to challenge normative cultural assumptions, but also their own. In this sense, by

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

29

entering in a dialogic relationship (Bakhtin 1986), the students developed a discursive practice

not only for approaching new meanings, but also for promoting a reflective critical position of

the old ones. Such (re)positioning, is dialogic since, according to Dunlop (1999), the dialogic

interaction when geared to creative change and constructing solidarity, not in spite of, but rather

because of difference, where multiple variables of voice (race, culture, class, and gender) are put

in dialogue, the opportunity to reflect critically upon and to revise individual and cultural

assumptions becomes available. Working with postmodernist notions, such as the discursive

construction of knowledge, multiple subjectivities, and relations of power (Ivanic 1998), we

encouraged the students to approach knowledge not as a transferred entity, but as partial,

emergent and situated in ever-shifting particularities. The students‟ co-construction of meanings

was a radical engagement with knowledge, indicating that “meanings cannot be grounded upon

any fixed or stable identities but is the product of difference” (Wegerif 2008: 349). Tariq, for

example, talked about the impossibility of arriving at fixed meanings where certainty and

settlement of knowledge, particularly about cultures, is no longer of concern for him (G4, SN).

The students‟ meaning-making approaches were not only intermediated as members involved in

a dialogue, but also were emergent and dynamic in a sense that each member shifts from one

position to another while providing, challenging, or accepting meanings, which reflects a

dynamic genre of producing meanings and knowledge. Such a dialogic/hybridized approach

constitutes a radical challenge to the monologic assumptions of modernism and views of

knowledge (Wegerif 2008), educating cross-cultural learners to read these codes historically and

critically while simultaneously acknowledging the limits of these codes (Giroux 1992).

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

30

Works Cited

Abu-Shomar, A (2010) “Interrogating the Cultural Constructs of the English Literary Canon: the

Potential of „Dialogic Spaces‟”. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Exeter, UK.

AlQur'an, F. (2006) The Reception of 'The Season of Migration to the North' Critically, Amman:

Amant Amman AlQubra [our translation].

Armstrong: (1983) „Heart of Darkness and the epistemology of cultural difference‟, in Ficham,

G. & Hooper, M. (eds.), Under Postcolonial Eyes Joseph Conrad after the Empire, Cape

Town: University of Cape Town Press, pp. 21-42.

Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1995) „General introduction‟, in Ashcroft, B., Griffiths,

G., & Tiffin, H. (eds.), The Post-colonial Studies Reader, London: Routledge.

Atkinson, J. (1995) How do we teach pre-twentieth century literature?, in Protherough, R. and

Kinh: (eds.), The Challenge of English in the National Curriculum, London: Routledge, pp.

48-64.

Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin, Austin: University

of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1986) „The problem of speech genres‟, in Bakhtin, M., Emerson, C., & Holquist,

M. (eds.), Speech Genres & Other Late Essays, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Barbour, R. (2001) Checklist for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail

wagging the dog. British Medical Journal 322: 1115-1117.

Bauman, Zygmunt (1996) „From pilgrim to tourist – or a short history of identity‟, in Hall, S. &

Du Gay: (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity, London: Sage, pp. 18-36.

Bauman, Zygmunt (2001) Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: Polity.

Bauman, Z. & Tester, K. (2001) Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman, Cambridge: Polity

Press in association with Blackwell Publishing.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

31

BERA. (2004). Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Retrieved October 27,

2007, http://www.informaworld.com/index.713727799.pdf.

Bhabha, H. (1990) Nation and Narration, New York: Routledge.

Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture, London: Routledge.

Bialostosky, D. (1986) Dialogic as an art of discourse in literary criticism. PMLA, 101: 788-797.

Bloor, M. & Wood, F. (2006) Keywords in Qualitative Methods, London: Sage.

Boehmer, E. (2005) Colonial & Postcolonial Literature (2nd

edition), Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Booth, T., & Booth, W. (1996) Sounds of silence: Narrative research with inarticulate subjects.

Disability & Society 11: 55-69.

Clandinin, D. & Connelly, F. (2000) Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative

research, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooper, B. (1996) „Postcolonialism against the "Empire of the Discipline"‟, in Ficham, G. &

Hooper, M. (eds.), Under postcolonial eyes Joseph Conrad after the Empire, Cape Town:

University of Cape Town Press, pp. 21-42.

Creswell, J. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, London: Sage.

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2005) The Sage Handbook For Qualitative Research, 3rd

ed. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunlop, R. (1999) Towards Negotiation of Difference. Canadian Journal of Education 24: 57-

69.

Dyenka, K. (1999) Teaching High School English In Bhutan: A Study at the Crossroads Of

Language, Literature And Culture. Unpublished Masters dissertation, New Burnswick:

University of New Brunswick.

http://www.jpcs.in/

http://www.informaworld.com/index.713727799.pdf


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

32

Emden, C. (1998) Theoretical perspectives on narrative inquiry. Collegian: Journal of Royal

College of Nursing Australia 5: 30-35.

Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher

Education.

Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.

Fincham, G. & Hooper, M. (1996) Under Postcolonial Eyes: Josef Conrad after Empire, Cape

Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Giroux, H. (1992) Border crossing: Cultural workers and the Politics of Education, New York:

Routledge.

Gone, J., Miller & Rappaport, J. (1999) Conceptual self as normatively oriented: The suitability

of past personal narrative for the study of cultural identity. Culture Psychology 4, 371-398.

Gur-Ze've, I. (2005) Critical Theory and Critical Pedagogy Today: Toward a new critical

language in education, Haifa: University of Haifa 31905.Hall, 1996d

Hall, G. (2005) Literature in Language Education, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hall, S. (1996a) Introduction: Who needs identity? In Hall, S. & Du Gay: (eds.), Questions of

Cultural Identity, London: Sage.

hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the practice of freedom, New York:

Routledge.

Ivanic, R. (1998) Writing and Identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic

writing, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kocatepe, M. (2005) Troubling Essentialised Constructions Of Culture: An analysis of a critical

discourse analysis approach to teaching and learning language and culture, Unpublished

PhD Thesis, James Cook University.

Kraiday, M. (2002) Hybridity in cultural globalization, Communication Theory, 12, 316-339.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

33

Kramsch, C. (1993a) Context and culture in language teaching, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Kouritzin, A. (2004). The British Columbia literature 12 curriculum and I: A soliloquy.

Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 185-212.

Linell, P. (2009) Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically, New York: IAP.

MacDonald, M. & O‟Regan, J. (2009, December) The Ethics of International Dialogue. Paper

presented at the 38th

annual Meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australia,

Imin International Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.

Markova, I. (2003) Dialogicality and Social Representations: The dynamics of mind,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maxwell, J. (1992) „Understanding and validity in qualitative research‟, in Huberman, A. &

Miles, B. (eds.), The Qualitative Researcher's Companion, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.

37-64.

McEwan, H. (1997) The functions of narrative and research on teaching, Teaching and Teacher

Education 13: 85-92.

McLeod, J. (2000) Beginning Postcolonialism, Manchester: Manchester.

McQuaid, N. (2009) Learning to 'un-divide' the world: The legacy of colonialism and education

in the 21st century, Critical Literacy: Theories and Practice 3: 12-25.

Meredith: (1998) “Hybridity in the Third Space: rethinking bi-cultural in Aotearoa/ New

Zealand,”A paper presented at Te Oru Rangahau Maori Research and Development

Conference. Massey University.

Merriam, S. (2001) Qualitative research and Case Study Application in Education, 2nd

ed. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

34

Moore, D. (1994) Decolonising Criticism: Reading dialectics and dialogics in native American

literatures. Studies in American Literatures 6: 7-36.

Mulenga, D. (2001) Mwalimu Julius Nyerere: A critical review of his contribution to adult

education and postcolonialism, International Journal of Lifelong Learning 6: 446-470.

Pallant, J. & Tennant, A. (2007) An introduction to the research measurement model: An

example using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), British Journal of

Clinical Psychological 46: 1-18.

Phillion, J. & He, M. (2010) „Narrative inquiry in educational research‟, in Huber-Warring, T.

(ed.), Storied Inquiries in International Landscapes: An Anthology of Educational

Research, Arizona, Scottsdale: Information Age Publishing, pp. 249-257.

Polkinghorne, D. (1988) Narrative Knowing in the Human Sciences, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Pring, R. (2004). Philosophy of educational research. 2nd ed. London: Continuum.

Sadiq, E. (2007) „Postmodernism in Second, Third and Fourth World literatures: Postcolonial

literary theory‟, in Mursi, W. & Batouk, L. (eds.), Post-colonial readings: Essays in

literature and language, King Saud University: Al Mutanbbi Library, pp. 2-29.

Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, Harmondsworth, London: Penguin.

Said, E. (1994) Culture and Imperialism, London: Vintage.

SØndergaad, D. (2002) Poststructuralist approaches to empirical analysis. International Journal

of Qualitative Studies in Education 15: 187-204.

Souza, L. (2004) „The Ecology of writing among the Kashinawa: Indigenous multimodality in

Brazil‟, in Canagarajah, S. (ed.), Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice,

New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Souza, L. (2007) 'Editor's preface', critical literacy, Theories and Practices 1: 4-5.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

35

Spivak, G. (1991) Neocolonialism and the secret agent of knowledge, Oxford Literary Review

13: 324-337.

Stockholder, K., Hollis, S., & Bialostosky, D. (1987) Dialogic Discourse, PMLA, 102: 829-832.

Taylor, W. (2007) An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical

research (1999-2005), International Journal of Lifelong Education 26, 173-191.

Tedlock, B. (2000) „Ethnography and ethnographic representation‟, in Denzin, N. & Lincoln Y.

(eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research

(2nd

edition), Thousand Oaks, NJ: Sage.

Verhaeghe: (1998) „Causation and destitution of a pre-ontological non-entity: On the Lacanian

subject‟, in Nobus, D. (ed.), Key Concepts of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, London: Rebus

Press, pp. 164-189.

Viswanathan, F. (1987) „The beginnings of the English literary study in India‟, in Donald, J. &

Rattansi, A. (eds.), Race, Culture and Difference, London: Sage, pp. 149-165.

Viswanathan, G. (1989) Masks of the Conquest: Literary study and British rule in India,

London: Faber and Faber.

Wegerif, R. (2008) Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research

on educational dialogue. British Research Journal 43: 374-361.

Wertsch, J. (1991) Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action,

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Whittemore, R., Langness, L., & Koegel: (1986) „The life history approach to mental

retardation‟, in Langness, L. & Levine, H. (eds.), Culture and Retardation, Reidel

Publishing Company.

Zubair, S. (2006) Women, English literature and identity construction in southern Punjab,

Pakistan. Journal of South Asian Development 1: 249-271.

http://www.jpcs.in/


ISSN No. 1948-1853



JPCS Vol. 3, No. 3 & 4, 2012.

www.jpcs.in

36

Zughoul, M. (1986) English departments in third world universities: Language, linguistics, or

literature? English Teaching Forum 24: 10-17.

Zughoul, M. (1999) ELT curriculum: New challenge, new solutions, Proceeding of the XIXth

MATE Annual Conference: Marrakech.

Biographical note

Ayman Abu-Shomar is an Assistant Professor of English Literature and Critical Theory in

King Saud University (KSU), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Previous to this he taught in Yarmouk

University (Jordan), and extensively in Saudi Arabia. His principal reach interests are English

literature, cultural studies, contemporary literary theories, post-colonialism, dialogism and cross-

cultural studies

Malcolm N. MacDonald is an Associate Professor in the Centre of Applied Linguistics at the

University of Warwick and Editor of Language and Intercultural Communication. He has also

lectured in Language Education at the Universities of Stirling, St. Andrews and Exeter. His

principal research interests are discourse analysis, cultural studies and intercultural communication.

http://www.jpcs.in/

Dialogic Spaces: diasporic negotiation of difference

Documents

Transcript of Dialogic Spaces: diasporic negotiation of difference