Hybridity As A Rhetorical Strategy In Doris Lessing’s Narration

In recent years, scholars have paid more attention to Doris Lessing’s narration. Yet up to now few critics have approached Lessing from the perspective of hybridity, which turns out to be a distinctive narrative feature of her writing. Therefore, this dissertation focuses on the hybridized narration in Lessing in light of Mikhail Bakhtin and Homi Bhabha’s concept of hybridity. It tries to argue that Lessing makes hybridity one of her rhetorical strategies by establishing a dialogic mechanism in her writing, a fact that can be demonstrated in the multi-voiced dialogue within the text, the interaction among the author, text and reader, her response to or inheritance of other writers and theorists, as well as the adjustments and occasional self-contradiction apparent in her writing philosophy. Thanks to this dialogism set up both inside and outside, her text, to quote Bakhtin, becomes "a mixture of two social languages within the limits of a single utterance", an effective strategy to replace the single-voice authority in the traditional fiction. In this sense, hybridity is reconstructive as well as subversive.Bhabha regards hybridity as "a strategy of subversion" and highlights its significance in the Third Space enunciations. The Third Place is productive in that it embraces new power. This hybrid strategy opens up "a space of negotiation" which calls for neither "assimilation" nor "collaboration", but a space open for dialogue as well as construction. Lessing is perseverant in making something anew to fight against the dominant discourse through a multi-dimensional dialogue in which different voices integrate into each other without losing their own distinctive features.This kind of hybridity in Lessing not only manifests itself in her specific narrative skills, but also in her writing philosophy which turns out to be the outcome of her decades-long contemplation on novel writing in her auto-biographies, interviews and literary essays. This dissertation, then, delves into the following three aspects of her work:(1) the diversified voices, narrators, perspectives and the dynamic author-text-reader relationship; (2) the juxtaposition of styles, genres, and subject matters as well as the "dialogue" or "negotiation" between Lessing and other writers and theorists; and (3) the sources of her re-constructiveness and de-constructiveness as reflected in her protesting, adaptive and experimental spirit as well as her ever-evolving writing philosophy.Firstly, by resorting to diversified voices, narrators and perspectives, Lessing manages to produce in her writing either a double- or multi-voiced dialogue. The co-existence of retrospective and experiencing perspectives, the white-and-black viewpoint and the internalized patriarchal perspective combined helps to break the limits of the authoritative discourse, or of "a single utterance". A new space is thus created, characterized by "difference and sameness in an apparently impossible simultaneity". This polyphonic narrative grows out of both her "unconscious, organic" hybridization and her "conscious" efforts. Besides, the diversity as manifested in her fictional writing does not always keep in line with her views on literary production she presents in the non-fiction. This occasional incompatibility between her writing philosophy and writing gives rise to misreadings on the part of the reader and encounters unexpected reader responses. What’s more, the hybrid use of narrative skills not only brings more ambiguities to the text, but also makes the reading process a difficult one. Nevertheless, this unstable author-text-reader relationship best proves the nature of hybridity as explained by Bakhtin, namely, the "limitless" production of meaning, or the possibility of the "reinterpretation" of meaning.Secondly, Lessing’s experiment with different styles, genres, and subject matters contributes to the hybridity in her writing. Rather than adhering to set principles, she constantly brings new elements into her texts even when she writes in conventional styles. When dealing with fiction and non-fiction, for example, she purposely blurs the demarcation between the real and the imaginative and thus injects freshness into the two genres. In addition, her space fiction is not a break with realism but rather a kind of inheritance and development from it. Far from a gesture of escapism, her fondness for space fiction indicates an effort of getting rid of the provincialism of British literature by telling a more universal truth. The semi-fictional writing growing out of her own experience and that of her parents, the lengthy statements she has made on the topic of fiction and non-fiction, all this shows her concern for the issues of genre and style. Lessing in her earliest years of writing tends to be more realistic, then she turns to modernistic and post-modernistic ways of writing, and finally she seems to return to realism, although these "turns" and "returns" never indicate a complete break. In spite of all these turnings, namely, it is hard to put her into any one of these "isms", for she seldom sticks to any single way of writing. Apart from styles and genres, the hybridity of Lessing’ works also reveals itself in her choice of subject matters which cover a wide range of cultures, ideas, races and social issues. As she experiments with different styles, genres and subject matters, the hybrid construction in her work becomes more congenial to her social criticism than any conventional narrative she could ever attempt. It can be proved that she benefits as well as makes breakthroughs from the politics and poetics of the day. Apart from the dialogue with herself, Lessing, by "negotiating" with others, makes her contribution towards the construction of a heteroglossia in literature.Thirdly, apart from the textual construction, the cutting edge of Lessing’s hybridity comes from her awareness of cultural legacies. Her educational, literary, and ideological background contributes as much to her hybridized way of writing. Lessing protests against the provincialism in British literature and the practice of labeling. Besides, her preference for an open stance and the practice of border-crossing is also held accountable for her strategic use of hybridity. Lessing blames contemporary British writers for their narrowness, declaring that their "horizons are bounded by their immediate experience of British life and standard", hence a Euro-centered perspective, a major concern of post-colonial theorists like Bhabha and Said. Besides, Lessing is unhappy about the fact that she is often regarded as a realist or modernist, or in particular, a feminist writer. Although she cares much about gender issues, for some of her works such as The Golden Notebook do have some influence on the second-wave feminist movement, she always stands clear of the feminist group. Being one of the practitioners of border-crossing and the self-styled "thrice-exiled", Lessing protests against the practice of categorization and turns out to be highly hybridized both in writng and in mind. The frequent revision of her writing philosophy not only shows her fluidity and paradoxy, but also has a direct bearing on her choice of narrative skills. As for the author’s function, she begins with a firm belief in the author’s preaching and transforming power and ends as a disillusioned writer who does not see any superiority in the writer. Similarly, she gradually becomes doubtful about the necessity of integrating the moral issue into writing which she at the very beginning has strong faith in. Due to these changes in attitude, Lessing frequently modifies her role as an author, from an omniscient authority towards a cool-headed and more detached observer in the later years of her writing. No wonder there have been some backtracks and self-contradictions between her writing principles and practice which all adds up to the hybridized nature of her narration.Bakhtin applies the theory of hybridity to the examination of language and pays more attention to the dismantlement of the single-voice utterance. Bhabha, by focusing on the cultural and post-colonial context, goes on to highlight the active role hybridity plays in the construction of the Third Space. If the development of language tends to prioritize the independence and individuality of each utterance, the interpretation or translation of cultures calls for more attention towards common ground with differences. Bakhtin points out that the tension caused by the contradiction or conflict between two discourses within one single utterance provides the text with productive power. Bhabha regards hybridity as an effective strategy in bringing forth negotiation and dialogue between different voices, a co-existence of difference and sameness on the margin or in a space "in-between". Both of the these ideas find resonance in Lessing, that is, the pursuit of differentiation and individualization as well as the construction of a polyphonic narrative which is open to multi-voiced negotiations. This doubleness, however, gives rise to an inner contradiction which Lessing is not totally unaware of, namely, on the one hand she tries to speak out from the margin, in an effort to subvert the dominating discourse; on the other hand, she identifies herself, however reluctantly, with the voice from the center. She disagrees with the binary opposition while at the same time tends to turn it into a means of deconstructing the binary opposition. In other words, to blur the difference, she often foregrounds the disparities at first in a way to bring forth the ultimate reconciliation between different parties.In a word, Lessing’s hybridity contains de-constructive and re-constructive elements constantly supplementing each other, so that the text becomes highly polyphonic. To approach Lessing’s narration from the perspective of hybridity helps to highlight her distinctive narrative features as well as best demonstrate her spirit of resistance and the will to experimentation.