The Fractured Centre: Ecological Mimicry in Natalia García Freire’s This World Does Not Belong to Us Pusat yang Retak: Mimikri Ekologis dalam “This World Does Not Belong to Us” Karya Natalia García Freire
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Natalia Garcia Freire’s This World Does Not Belong To Us (2022) is an uncanny representation of the ecological haunting of Lucas and his father, engaging with colonial discourse and dispossession. This paper aims to examine how Freire’s novel deploys a paradigm of “ecological mimicry” by integrating Bhabha’s theory of colonial ambivalence and mimicry, extending Derrida’s concept of discourses and the instability of meaning. Both Derrida and Bhabha provide frameworks that reveal the instability of colonial discourse, which achieves its “origin” through the narration of repetition and difference. Employing a close reading and contextual postcolonial analysis, the paper examines how Lucas and his father perform colonial ambivalence as dispossessed subjects through ecological haunting and identification with nature. Extending Derrida and Bhabha’s theories rooted in discursive narratives, this study develops the concept of “ecological mimicry” to analyze Lucas’ resistance and resignification, deriving new meanings of identity and belonging. The analysis demonstrates the inversion and destabilization of colonial hierarchies through ecological mimicry. The study thus aims to contribute to postcolonial ecological criticism by expanding on Derrida and Bhabha’s frameworks into environmental narrative contexts.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
References
Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2003). Post-colonial studies: The key concepts. Routledge.
Baker, C. (2010). Sara Upstone, spatial politics in the postcolonial novel (London: Ashgate, 2009). Lancaster EPrints. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/68359/
Barry, P. (2009). Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory (3rd ed.). Manchester University Press.
Bhabha, H. K. (1984). Of mimicry and man: The ambivalence of colonial discourse. October, 28, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/778467
Derrida, J. (2001). Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In Writing and difference, 1st edition (pp. 375–394). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203991787-14
Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press. https://doi.org/10.56021/9781421419954
Fanon, F. (1952). Black skin, white masks. Éditions du Seuil.
Freire, N. G. (2022). This world does not belong to us. Oneworld Publications.
Glotfelty, C., & Fromm, H. (1996). The ecocriticism reader: Landmarks in literary ecology. University of Georgia Press.
Hamdoune, Y. (2025). Islam in transcultural and postcolonial realities: Questioning traditionalism and westernization in Leila Aboulela’s Bird Summons. Journal of Literature and Education, 3(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.69815/jle.v3i2.144
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1964). The raw and the cooked. Plon.
Merskey, H. (1967). Madness and civilisation. Mental Health, 26(2), 38. https://europepmc.org/abstract/PMC/PMC5092265
Nayar, P. K. (2008). Postcolonial literature: An introduction. Pearson Education India.
Rahman, F., & Kholid, M. (2025). Deconstruction and subversion in literature: Countering the hegemony of colonial discourse. Journal of Literature and Education, 3(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.69815/jle.v3i1.141