A Study of Hybridity and National Identity in the Selected Novels of ...

A Study of Hybridity and National Identity 

in the Selected Novels of Bapsi Sidhwa and David Malouf. 

Abstract: 

Daryoosh Hayati & Eisa Amiri 

Islamic Azad University, Iran 

Postcolonial elements as identity and hybridity have been subjected to debate among the 

scholars in the field of postcolonial criticism. The main problem many critics are 

encountered with in criticizing a literary work, is how to discover hybridity and 

identity. Attention must be paid to the fact that Postcolonial authors use their works to 

solidify, through criticism and celebration, an emerging national identity, which they 

have taken on the responsibility of representing. While postcolonial criticism is culture 

bound, this essay would base its discussion on the views of some of the most prominent 

postcolonial theorists as Bhabha, Spivak and Said to name a few on the selected works of 

Bapsi Sidhwa and David Malouf to shed light on the idea that only by understanding, 

exploring and embracing the idea of cultural hybridity in attempting to explore the 

concept of national identity can an individual truly hope to understand or communicate 

with postcolonial literary works. 

Keywords: postcolonial literature, hybridity, national identity, cultural studies, 

hegemony, 

Introduction 

In fact the concept of hybridity occupies a central place in postcolonial 

discourse, yet before taking the term any further into consideration it is 

necessary to claim that the history of hybridity has caused some to consider 

the employment of the concept as problematic, indeed, offensive. (Mitchell 

1997) In colonial discourse, hybridity is a term of abuse for those who are 

products of miscegenation, mixed-breeds. 

BARNOLIPI - An Interdisciplinary Journal - Volume - II. Issue – II. ISSN 2249 –2666 

www.reflectionedu.com/barnolipi.php © REFLECTION Mentoring Services 

8

Despite this loaded historical past, Papastergiadis reminds us of the 

emancipative potential of negative terms. He poses the question “should we 

use only words with a pure and inoffensive history, or should we challenge 

essentialist models of identity by taking on and then subverting their own 

vocabulary.” (Papastergiadis 1997, p. 258). 

This is particularly so in Bhabha’s discussion of cultural hybridity. Bhabha 

has developed his concept of hybridity from literary and cultural theory to 

describe the construction of culture and identity within conditions of 

colonial antagonism and inequity. (Bhabha 1994; Bhabha 1996) For Bhabha, 

hybridity is the process by which the colonial governing authority 

undertakes to translate the identity of the colonised (the Other) within a 

singular universal framework, but then fails producing something familiar 

but new. (Papastergiadis 1997) Bhabha contends that a new hybrid identity 

or subject-position emerges from the interweaving of elements of the 

coloniser and colonised challenging the validity and authenticity of any 

essentialist cultural identity. Hybridity is positioned as antidote to 

essentialism, or “the belief in invariable and fixed properties which define 

the ‘whatness’ of a given entity.” (Fuss, 1991, p. xi). In postcolonial 

discourse, the notion that any culture or identity is pure or essential is 

disputable. (Ashcroft et al, 1995) Bhabha himself is aware of the dangers of 

fixity and fetishism of identities within binary colonial thinking arguing that 

“all forms of culture are continually in a process of hybridity.” (Rutherford 

1990, p.211). 

Thus reading postcolonial theory and practicing hybridity prompts the 

question posed by Espinet (1999): ‘How can the historian or investigator 



9

avoid the inevitable risk of presenting herself as an authoritative 

representative of subaltern consciousness?’ ( p.3), or in other words at risk 

of being misinterpreted, which arises naturally out of Gayatri Spivak’s 

challenging essay ‘Can the subaltern speak?’ (1985). Keeping this in mind, 

it seems necessary to preface any writing about postcolonial literature 

designed for a young adult readership with a statement of position. The 

crucial element which informs such writing is after all governed by location, 

in terms of ideological perspective, as well as geographically. Since the texts 

proposed for investigation are published by and written for a Western 

audience, anyone who is to investigate these texts needs to be aware of the 

influence of this tradition on their perspectives and judgments. The 

processes of writing texts exploring cultural difference and the literary- 

critical practices of evaluating the success of such texts similarly form part 

of a counter-hegemonic movement attempting to redress a long history of 

imperialism, a movement which seeks to promote a feminist postcolonial 

perspective. 

Batts (1992) asserts the responsibility of the postcolonial critic ‘to read 

works of literature for their stated and unstated assumptions about the other’ 

(p.xxviii). He sees this as necessary given the ‘neocolonial sensibility which 

does appear in many books for the young’ (p.xxiv). Batts defines 

‘neocolonialism’ as a style of writing that …manifests itself as both a 

depiction of minority cultures as inveterately other and inferior in some way 

to the dominant European or Eurocentric culture, or as an appropriation of 

other cultures – that is, an assimilation of minority cultures into the 

mainstream way of thinking. (Batts,1992, p.xxiv). 



10

This position is further elaborated by Anderson, who claims that this process 

of redefining the relationship between self and cultural other is indicative of 

‘a changed world characterized by increased tolerance and understanding’ 

but also points to its capacity to mirror ‘a world saturated with imperialist 

ideas, stereotypes, and narratives’ (2000, p.1). A more pointed observation 

by Espinet (1999) locates the resistance to change in the humanist tradition, 

claiming that ‘the entire field of the humanities is vitiated by a compulsion 

to claim a spurious universality and also to disguise its political investment 

in the production of “dominant knowledges” (p.44). 

Moreover a good definition of the Orient is the one proposed by Edward 

Said who defined it as: 

The place of Europe’s greatest and richest and oldest colonies, 

the source of its civilisations and its languages, its cultural 

contestant, and one of its deepest and recurring images of the 

Other. In addition, the Orient has helped to define Europe (or 

the West) as its contrasting image, idea personality, 

experience. (Said, 1978, pp.1-2) 

Said uses Nietzsche’s philosophy to foreground the impossibility of 

conveying a single 'objective' truth because attitudes are embodied in forms 

of language like idioms and metaphors. It is suggested that the ideas of the 

Orient described by Said, although originating in the nineteenth century, 

continue to permeate novels about life in contemporary India written from a 

Western point of view, with the intention of illuminating cultural otherness. 



11

Discussion 

Every human being, in addition to having their own personal identity, has a 

sense of who they are in relation to the larger community--the nation. 

Postcolonial studies are the attempt to strip away conventional perspective 

and examine what that national identity might be for a postcolonial subject. 

To read literature from the perspective of postcolonial studies is to seek out-- 

to listen for, that indigenous, representative voice which can inform the 

world of the essence of existence as a colonial subject, or as a postcolonial 

citizen. Postcolonial authors use their literature and poetry to solidify, 

through criticism and celebration, an emerging national identity, which they 

have taken on the responsibility of representing. Surely, the reevaluation of 

national identity is an eventual and essential result of a country gaining 

independence from a colonial power, or a country emerging from a fledgling 

settler colony. However, to claim to be representative of that entire identity 

is a huge undertaking for an author trying to convey a postcolonial message. 

Each nation, province, island, state, neighborhood and individual is its own 

unique amalgamation of history, culture, language and tradition. Only by 

understanding and embracing the idea of cultural hybridity when attempting 

to explore the concept of national identity can any one individual, or nation, 

truly hope to understand or communicate the lasting effects of the colonial 

process. 

Post-colonialism is the continual shedding of the old skin of Western 

thought and discourse and the emergence of new self-awareness, critique, 

and celebration. With this self-awareness comes self-expression. But how 

should the inhabitants of a colonial territory, or formerly colonized country 



12

or province see themselves, once they have achieved their independence? 

With whom will they identify? As an example in a country like India, prior 

to 1947, most people identified themselves as Indians, against the identity of 

their British oppressors. Theirs was a strong feeling of communal, national 

identity, fostered by a shared resentment of the British colonial powers. 

However, after 1947, after being granted autonomy, India's populace slowly 

disintegrated into more and more divided factions, as the "national" identity 

shrunk, and people found other, closer groups to identify with. The 

ambiguous and shifting nature of national identity is thus integral to a 

discussion of postcolonial theory, as identification with one group inevitably 

leads to differentiation with others. 

In his definitive book about the concept of "nation" and "nationalism," 

Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson says: 

In an anthropological spirit, then, I propose the following 

definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community-- 

and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is a 

cultural construct, a man-made artifice. (Anderson, 1997, p. 5). 

His work refers to anthropological data, as he maintains that the concept of 

"nation" is truly a cultural construct, “a man-made artifice”. Thus, for 

Anderson, it is "imagined." Nation, and identity, begins with one's family 

and closest friends, and slowly moves out from this center. In our 

contemporary example, two residents of the same country may live in 

completely different geographical climates, having very little in common 

with each other. In such a case, one may have a personal identity, and 

identify with a more local "nation," yet be part of a political nation as 

defined by demarcated boundary lines, drawn on a map. As Anderson says, 



13

"All communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact and 

perhaps even these are imagined" (Anderson, 1997, p. 6). 

As earlier mentioned, Post-colonialism is the continual shedding of the old 

skin of Western thought and discourse and the emergence of new self- 

awareness, critique, and celebration. How should the inhabitants of a 

colonial territory, or formerly colonized country or province see themselves, 

once they have achieved their independence? With whom will they identify? 

Such questions have been the subject of debate among many postcolonial 

critics at least since 1980’s, if not longer than that, which is commonly 

believed to be the point of emergence for postcolonial theory, with the 

publication of Orientalism by Edward Said. The long-running Western 

colonialist perspective of nation seems to be: that simply by drawing lines 

on a piece of paper and forming a government within those lines, a cohesive 

political entity can be created. A perfect example of this lies in the formation 

of modern India. Prior to British colonization of India, there existed, in 

relative harmony, one of the most diverse and heterogeneous populations on 

the planet. Communities and culture gave people their identity. By the time 

India achieved its independence, however, the British had created a 

bureaucracy, boundaries and centralized government, in the likeness of the 

prototypical Western nation-state. 

For the inhabitants of India during the colonial years and the time leading to 

their independence, embracing a national identity was not a difficult task, for 

several reasons. The first is that it is easiest for someone to identify 

themselves in terms of contrast with another, outside identity. People living 

in India prior to 1947 were striving for independence from shared oppression 

by the British. Thus, no matter what their cultural background may have 



14

een, or their geographical location within the emerging nation of India, 

anyone who was not a member of the colonial institution could view 

themselves as being victimized by flat institution, and could identify with 

every other "Indian" in that victimization. Another example could be a 

participant in the Negritude movement in Africa, who could celebrate being 

black only by contrasting black with white. And yet another example lies 

with any country, any nation, which is at war with another. Nationalist 

sentiment reaches a crescendo during war by differentiating one's own 

country from that of the enemy. 

The second reason that it is relatively easy for colonized subjects to adopt 

and live a national identity lies in the fact that the very identity adopted by 

the oppressed has been most likely encouraged by the oppressor. This 

touches on the idea of hegemony as postulated by Antonio Gramsci. 

Grarnsci was interested in the subject of subordination as it existed within a 

colony or nation. He maintained that colonial powers would not have been 

able to maintain their rule over colonized people without the implicit, if 

unconscious permission of the colonized subjects. He believed that 

subordination over long periods entailed the participation of those 

subordinated. As Ania Loomba points out in Colonialism or 

Postcolonialism, "Gramsci argued that the ruling classes achieve domination 

not by force or coercion alone, but also by creating subjects who 'willingly' 

submit to being ruled" ( Loomba, 2006, p.29). 

Colonial authority wanted a subject to feel a sense of national spirit. The 

British wanted the inhabitants of their newly-constructed India to embrace 

the idea of their being "Indian,"( Anderson, 1997, p. 56) albeit in a form laid 



15

out by the British. Before the British consolidated their influence into a 

territory they called India, it was an immensely varied, heterogeneous mass 

of different religions, political and cultural beliefs. Having drawn lines in the 

sand which defined India, and having instituted a central government, the 

British expected Parsi, Kashmiri, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, upper and 

lower-class or caste to think of themselves as Indian and to respect the 

British-established government. The British gave the Indian people a model 

of "Indian,"(Anderson, 1997, p.56) of being a British subject, and expected 

the population to embrace it, which, in most cases, they did. This is what 

Anderson refers to as "mental miscegenation."(Anderson, 1997, p.57) 

Once a country like India achieved its independence from the British 

colonial machine, how then were these people supposed to identify 

themselves? They were a vast nation of a tremendously varied cultural 

history, labeled "Indian' by the very powers they had striven to evict from 

their country. Only by exploring the idea of "cultural nationalism" can this 

phenomenon be at all understood. This line of thinking attributes national 

identity not so much to boundaries and political machinations, but, rather, to 

more elemental cultural and community-oriented aspects of one's persona. 

It must be remembered that Anderson has defined "nation" as an "imagined 

political community." This essays has discussed why it is "imagined," but 

why does he consider the nation a “community” ? He says: 

Finally, it [the nation] is imagined as a community because, 

regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may 

prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, 

horizontal comradeship. (Anderson,1997, p. 7). 



16

But, as an American, does one feel "a deep, horizontal comradeship" for a 

fellow citizen living in Alaska? Or is there more fraternity to be found with 

someone of similar religious belief or ethnic background? This is where the 

ambiguity surrounding the concept of "national identity" emerges. As 

Loomba states, "Perhaps the connection between postcolonial writing and 

the nation can be better comprehended by understanding that the 'nation' 

itself is a ground of dispute and debate, a site for the competing imaginings 

of different ideological and political interests" (Loomba, 2006, p. 207). It is 

right to believe that this "dispute and debate"(p.58) can be successfully 

joined and undertaken only with knowledge of the work of Homi K. Bhabha, 

as it relates to the concept of "cultural hybridity."(1990, p.56) 

Bhabha put forth his idea of hybridity to explain the very unique sense of 

identity shared and experienced individually by members of a former 

colonized people. He maintains that members of a postcolonial society have 

an identity which has been shaped jointly by their own unique cultural and 

community history, intertwined with that of the colonial power. Thus, for 

example, a Parsi in Bombay will have incorporated into his or her personal 

and national identity the traditions inherent in being Parsi, being Muslim, 

and being an "Indian"--a member of a formerly oppressed society. Bhabha 

writes, "These hyphenated, hybridized cultural conditions are also forms of a 

vernacular cosmopolitanism that emerges in multicultural societies and 

explicitly exceeds a particular national location" (1994, p. 23). 

Thus, having illustrated the difficulties inherent in the postcolonial subject's 

attempt to formulate a new personal and national identity, we return to the 

initial, basic point of this discussion: How does a postcolonial author, 



17

playwright or poet provide a reader with a true representation of a particular 

postcolonial condition? Who does the author claim to represent? If an author 

is Indian in origin, does his writing represent the state of affairs for all 

Indians living in postcolonial India? The answer to this last question is 

transparently "no." The quality of life and historical circumstances vary too 

widely from town to town, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, family to 

family, and, ultimately, from individual to individual. The question remains 

then: is there a way for postcolonial authors to convey their respective 

messages about the colonial condition without assuming a definitive "voice," 

without presuming that they speak for all members of their respective 

"nation?" It should be maintained that there are at least three authors who 

have incorporated Bhabha's theory of cultural hybridity into their works, and 

thus are able to communicate the postcolonial condition to the rest of the 

world. These authors are, Bapsi Sidhwa and David Malouf whose works 

should be considered the quintessential fictional novels for illustrating the 

near insurmountable difficulties inherent in creating a national identity 

amongst a hugely heterogeneous postcolonial society of India's troubled 

attempt at forging a national consciousness immediately after achieving their 

independence from Great Britain. It is described the shared excitement and 

nationalist sentiments felt by the population of India as the day of their 

independence grew near: 

There was an extra festival on the calendar, a new myth to 

celebrate, because a nation which had never previously existed 

was about to win its freedom, catapulting us into a world which, 

although it had five thousand years of history, although it had 



18

invented the game of chess and traded with Middle Kingdom 

Egypt, was nevertheless quite imaginary; into a mythical land, a 

country which would never exist except by the efforts of a 

phenomenal collective will--except in a dream we all agreed to 

dream; it was a mass fantasy shared in varying degrees by 

Bengali and Punjabi, Madrasi and Jat, and would periodically 

need the sanctification and renewal which can only be provided 

by rituals of blood (Malouf, p.130). 

As the novel progresses, and the populace of India examine their new 

respective identities, people begin to narrow those identities, limiting more 

and more their respective concepts of "nation." Identification as "Indian" 

gives way to identification with religious beliefs, ethnic backgrounds and 

political convictions. And with each new phase of emerging identity, a new 

differentiation occurs between one member of Indian society and another. 

As these differentiations are further recognized and legitimized, a pattern 

of hegemony and violence ensues which threatens to tear the new nation of 

India apart. 

Bapsi Sidhwa articulates this same theme in An American Brat(1993). She 

approaches this same idea of Indian society pulling itself apart in its quest 

for a shared, postcolonial, national identity by focusing on one small 

neighborhood in the Punjab province. The inhabitants of this small, 

relatively insular community hardly notice the differences between one 

another until India achieves its independence, and is partitioned into 

Pakistan and India. As the novel progresses, this happy community is 



19

slowly tom apart by violent instances of racism and religious fanaticism. 

This is foreshadowed early in the book, during a conversation between 

various members of the neighborhood and the outgoing British Inspector 

General of the Police. The Inspector General is arguing with Mr. Singh, a 

Sikh, about what will happen in India once the British have left: 

Rivers of blood will flow all right! he shouts, almost as loudly 

as Mr. Singh. ‘Nehru and the Congress will not have everything 

their way! They will have to reckon with the Muslim League 

and Jinnah. If we quit India today, old chap, you'll bloody fall at 

each other's throats! ... Mr. Singh replies, ‘Hindu, Muslim, 

Sikh: we all want the same thing! We want independence’! 

(Sidhwa, 1993, 71). 

Essentially, the message being communicated by this novel is that in 

forging an identity, either on an individual basis, or as a nation, the 

stronger one feels about belonging to one group, the more separated they 

become from another. This is embracing the exact antithesis of cultural 

hybridity as espoused by Bhabha. 

Another unique approach to the use of cultural hybridity in a postcolonial 

text has been utilized by David Malouf, in his novel Remembering 

Babylon(1995). Malouf writes of the formative years of an Australian 

settler colony, and uses a very unique character, that of Gemmy, to 



20

illustrate the vast differences between the settlers and the aboriginals, and, 

eventually, between the settlers themselves. Gemmy is a white man who 

has grown up amongst the aboriginals. He has been away from Western 

society for so long that he is unable to communicate competently, or affect 

legitimate social discourse with the other whites. He comes to live with a 

young settler colony, and Malouf uses him to illustrate differences between 

all members of this colony. As each member of the colony tries to analyze 

the differences between themselves and Gemmy, they come to realize 

fundamental differences amongst them all. As Mr. Frazer writes in his 

logbook, "We must rub our eyes and look again, clear our minds of what 

we are looking for to see what is there" (Malouf, 1995, p. 130). 

Conclusion 

According to the study of the selected novels of Malouf and Sidhw about 

national identity and hybridity in a postcolonial atmosphere, as it was earlier 

pointed out, both these novelists conform to the theories proposed by some 

prominent postcolonial theorists as Anderson, Bhabha, Said and Spivak in a 

unique and at the same time complementary way. To conclude attention 

must be paid to the fact that what these two novels share is that each member 

of a postcolonial society would love to encounter one specific voice which 

could articulate their particular suffering and oppression under the colonial 

institution--one voice which would articulate their own sense of national 

identity. But exploration of these societies, and the literature produced by 

postcolonial authors and poets illustrates that there is a veritable infinite 

number of differing circumstances inherent in each postcolonial society, and, 



21

consequently, in each piece of literature produced by postcolonial writers. If 

one is to read this literature in a way which will shed some light on the 

postcolonial condition, one must understand and adopt the theory that we are 

all walking amalgamations of our own unique cultures and traditions. We 

are all always struggling with our own identities, personal and national. We 

must understand that there is no "one true voice" representing an easily 

identifiable postcolonial condition, but, instead, each author is his or her 

own voice and must be read as such. 

Bibliography 

Ascroft, B., Griffiths, G. and Tiffin, T. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in 

Post-Colonial Literatures. London, Routledge,1989. 

Anderson, Benedict: nation and nationalism, Toronto: The Mercury Press, 1997. 

Atwood, Margaret. Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature. Toronto: Anansi, 

1972. 

Ball, John Clement. “Taboos: M.G. Vassanji.” The Power to Bend Spoons: Interviews 

with Canadian Novelists. Ed. Beverley Daurio. Toronto: The Mercury Press, 1998. 200- 

209. 

Ball, John Clement. “Locating M.G. Vassanji’s The Book of Secrets: Postmodern, 

Postcolonial, or Other-Wise?” Floating the Borders: New Contexts in Canadian 

Criticism. Ed. Nurjehan Aziz. Toronto: TSAR, 1999. 89-105. 

Ball, John Clement. “Taking the Measure of India’s Emergency.” Rev. of A Fine 

Balance, by Rohinton Mistry. Floating the Borders: New Contexts in Canadian 

Criticism. Ed. Nurjehan Aziz. Toronto: TSAR, 1998. 234-9. 

Batts, Michael S. “Multiculturalism and Canadian Literature.” UsorThem: Translation, 

Transcription and Identity in Post-Colonial Literary Cultures. Ed. Gordon Collier, 

Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1992. 41-6. 

Bhabha, H. K. (ed.) Nation and Narration, London, Routledge, 1990. 

—— The Location of Culture, London: Routledge, 1994. 

—— Frontlines/Borderposts. Displacements: Cultural Identites in Question. A. Bammer. 

Bloomington, Indiana University Press.1994. 



22

—— Cultures in Between. Questions of Cultural Identity. S. Hall and P. Du Gay. 

London, Sage Publications. 1996. 

Bissoondath and Ben Okri.” From Commonwealth to Post -Colonial. Ed. Anna 

Rutherford. Sydney: Dangaroo Press, 1992. 74-82. 

Espinet, Ramabai. “The Old and the New.” Rev. of The Innocence of Age, by Neil 

Bissoondath. Floating the Borders: New Contexts in Postcolonial Criticism. Ed. 

Nurjehan Aziz. Toronto: TSAR, 1999. 208-11. 

Fuss, D. Essebtially Speaking: Feminism, Nature & Difference. New York, Routledge, 

1991. 

Harles, John. “Multiculturalism, National Identity, and National Integration: The 

Canadian Case.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 17 (1998): 217-49. 

Hoogvelt, A. Globalization and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of 

Development. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press.1997. 

Keneally, Thomas. “Home is Where the Death Squads Are.” Rev. of A Casual Brutality, 

by Neil Bissoondath. New York Times Book Review 26 Feb. 1989: 14. 

Kamboureli, Smaro. “Multiculturalism.” Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in 

English. Vol 2. Eds. Eugene Benson and L.W. Conolly. London: Routledge, 1994. 1053- 55. 

Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London: Routledge, 1998. 

Loomba, Ania. ‘Dead women tell no tales: Issues of female subjectivity, subaltern agency 

and tradition in colonial and postcolonial writings on widow immolation in India’, in Sue 

Morgan (ed), The Feminist History Reader. London and New York, Routledge , 2006, 

pp.309-22. 

Malouf, David: Remembering Babylon, Penguin, 1995. 

Mitchell, K. “Different Diasporas and the Hype of Hybridity.” Environment and Planning 

D: Society and Space 15: (1997), 533-553. 

Papastergiadis, N. Tracing Hybridity in Theory. Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi- 

Cultural Identities and the Politics of Anti-Racism. Werbner, P. & Modood., T. London, 

Zed Books: 1997, pp.257-281. 

Rutherford, J. The Third Space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. Identity, Community, Culture, 

Difference. J. Rutherford. London, Lawrence and Wishart:1990, pp.207-221. 

Said, Edward W. Orientalism, New York: Pantheon, 1978. 



23

Sidhwa, Bapsi. An American Brat. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions , 1993. 

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, in P. Williams and L. 

Chrisman (eds) Colonial Discourse and Postcolonial Theory: A Reader. Hemel 

Hempstead, UK, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1985, pp.66-111. 

About the Authors - 

- Daryoosh Hayati- Lamerd Branch. Islamic Azad University, Iran. 

dhayati@iaulamerd.ac.ir , dhhayati1354@gmail.com 

- Eisa Amiri - Lamerd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran. 



24

A Study of Hybridity and National Identity in the Selected Novels of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?