Homi Bhabha

"the visibility of mimicry is always produced at the site of interdiction". This means that when discourses or interdictions about mimicry are being created, not everything is spoken about. There are certain things which are suppressed so that the self doesn't encounter the inauthenticity of its own self. Camouflaging is very important because if I become aware of the fact that I can never be like the other then it can create troubles. So to avoid troubles I have to blur the line so that you don't become conscious of the fact that you are an inauthentic self. So to hide the inauthentic self, the colonial discourse manipulates interdictions in such a manner that you are not aware about your own inauthentic self.
Why Bhabha is taking Freud ahead? the main child sees that his mother doesn't have a penis, he suffers from a complex that he might just also lose his penis and his fear of losing the penis makes him act like a different person than her. So his desire to be different from the other comes from the desire of the object. This object becomes the focal point whereby he constructs his difference from the mother. So in the same way the colonial authority tries to keep this difference intact between the other and the self. But according to Bhabha, the colonial authorities might not be having such clear cut objects to which they associate with but they have clear cut objectives for keeping this difference intact. The colonial master needs an other to understand himself or herself. According to Edward Said, you may not be focused on one single object like in the case of the child but there are clear cut objectives of such differentiation.
Then there is the metonymy of presence. The metonymies of presence are the inappropriate objects that have been created or fixed on the colonized because for eg, Lying Asiatic doesn't mean that all Asians lie or that all blacks are brute but, the signifiers are attached to them to create the stereotypes so that the colonial