Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This chapter deals with work published in the field of Colonial and Postcolonial
Theory in 2002 and is divided into two sections: 1. Books; 2. Journals.
1. Books
PAGE 2 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 3
First, Goldberg and Quayson note that postcolonial criticism is rhetorically anti-
foundationalist. It works to expose the interdependence of binarisms, such as black/
white and self/other, at the same time as it claims an ethical foundation. As a result
it becomes ‘difficult if not impossible to separate postcolonial discourse completely
from an ethical project, even though the means by which its ethical ends are to be
achieved remains a highly contentious issue’ (p. xiii).
Second, they note that postcolonial studies is committed to an object of study that
it at once must deny, ‘is committed to dismantling even while necessarily
analytically fixated with it’ (p. xiii). This leads Goldberg and Quayson to a
significant conclusion: postcolonial criticism needs to learn to speak from a position
capable of imagining its own future redundancy.
Finally, Quayson and Goldberg note that postcolonial studies is a radically
expansive discourse that is, in their phrase, ‘appropriatively interdisciplinary’.
Postcolonialism borrows indiscriminately from theoretical traditions (e.g.
continental post-structuralist theory) elsewhere in a way that pays scant attention to
the cultural and conjunctural specificity of these traditions. Within this context,
Quayson and Goldberg fear the ‘tyranny of quotationality and citation’, the endless
repetition of phrases by key critics like Bhabha and Spivak with ‘minimal evocation
of the contexts in which they were originally produced’ (p. xvii). Part of the
problem, the editors suggest, has to do with the privileging of the essay form in
postcolonial studies, which they argue is formally disposed to generalization, to
unsustained argument and, therefore, neglects ‘the steady exploration of sources and
materials’ (p. xvii). Perhaps. But the essay has also been one of the most important
of postcolonial genres, encouraging specificity and focus rather than generalization
and allowing more immediate intervention within contemporary debate than the
more protracted monograph.
Goldberg and Quayson go on to acknowledge that the essay might also be said to
have encouraged a dislocated, restless questioning in the field that has been
productive, while noting, quite rightly, that restlessness itself is less significant than
the purpose it serves. Is it merely discursive, or does it contribute something to the
‘supple forms in which injustice and inequality often articulate themselves’ (p.
xviii)?
In the collection’s ‘Preface’ we are told that ‘Relocating Postcolonialism is
designed to rethink many of the assumptions and discursive maneuvers of
postcolonialism’ (p. ix). It is perhaps surprising then that the collection opens by
repeating the dominant discursive detour of postcolonial studies via an interview
with Edward Said, a conversation with Homi Bhabha and an essay by Spivak.
However, it is arguably in the conversation between the holy trinity and the essays
that follow that a relocation is to be evidenced. Within this context, Goldberg and
Quayson ask that individual contributions be viewed in dialogue with one another
rather than as discrete pieces. For example, in a lively, passionately argued piece,
‘Directions and Dead Ends in Postcolonial Studies’, Benita Parry takes issue with
the way in which Said, Spivak and Bhabha’s thinking has been subject to ‘an
indiscriminate and often celebratory usage’ (p. 66). The result has been a privileging
of textualist over materialist analyses of colonial discourse, the displacement of
political theory and practice by the politics of the symbolic order. While Parry
welcomes the contribution of postcolonial studies to an extended recognition of the
‘imaginary presence of empire’ (p. 67) in everything from canonical texts to pulp
PAGE 3 OF 17
4 COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
fiction, from magazines to music hall, she also notes the tendency to neglect
distinctions between ‘the ornamental and determinate function of empire within
texts’ (p. 69). If, in her ground-breaking reading of Jane Eyre, Spivak proceeds by
locating a proto-feminist novel within imperial discourse, Parry argues that critics
have subsequently made a fetish of colonial tropes so slavery has become a
dematerialized metaphor for domestic oppression in Brontë’s novel.
Benita Parry is also suspicious of the emphasis on diasporic writing over
resistance literature, avant-garde over realist modes of representation, metropolitan
over local languages, the accent on ambivalence at the expense of opposition. Such
‘sanctioned occlusions’, she concludes, ‘are a debilitating loss to thinking about
colonialism and late imperialism. The dismissal of politics and economics which
these omissions reflect is a scandal’ (p. 78). In short, Benita Parry calls for a material
relocation of postcolonial metaphors.
This call is taken up in many of Relocating Postcolonialism’s subsequent papers.
In ‘Racial Rule’, David Theo Goldberg historicizes two dominant traditions in racial
theorizing (the naturalist tradition associated with Hobbes and Carlyle and the
historicist tradition associated with Locke, Marx and John Stuart Mill) in order to
consider their implications for the emergence and development of the nation-state.
Anne Laura Stoler explores some of the complexities and contradictions at stake in
contemporary racist formations in Provence. Questioning the commonsense notion
that the rise of multiculturalism in France in the late 1990s subverts racism, she asks
us to attend to ‘historical evidence [that] suggests how smoothly those cultural
hybridities can be folded back within racialized societies and social formations’ (p.
106). In separate essays, Anne Bailey and Barnor Hesse explore the relationship
between history, memory and slavery. (See Hesse for a brilliant reading of
Spielberg’s Amistad in this context.)
More generally within the collection, there is a significant effort to move beyond
the conventional sites of postcolonial debate. While some of the essays re-examine
traditional concepts, such as gifting (see Ahluwalia and Ma-Rhea), they do so in
order to consider their implications for contemporary debate. Other essays in the
collection focus on new and overlooked aspects of postcoloniality, such as digital
technologies (Olu Oguibe), disability (Ato Quayson and Rosemarie Garland
Thomson) and linguistics (Laura Wright and Jonathan Hope). As a whole the
volume makes an important contribution to the current revisioning of
postcolonialism. While some will find the volume’s lack of structure and theoretical
or thematic coherence unhelpful, others will regard the absence of a prescriptive or
preferred postcolonialism and the ‘conversational’ (rather than consensual) feel of
the collection both valuable and refreshing.
Marxism, Modernity and Postcolonial Studies is a recent addition to the excellent
Cultural Margins series (Cambridge UP). Edited by Crystal Bartolovich and Neil
Lazarus, this collection emerges from a conference panel called ‘Rethinking
Marxism’ held at Amherst. In her introductory essay, Bartolovich notes the shared
convictions of the contributors ‘that Marxism and “postcolonial studies” have
something to say to each other—and that there might be more productive ways of
dealing with their differences than have been exhibited hitherto’ (p. 1). In making
her case for the collection, Bartolovich perhaps overstates these differences. For
example, she notes that:
PAGE 4 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 5
True. But the three theorists barely concealed behind these theoretical protocols—
Foucauldian discourse analysis (Said), deconstruction (Spivak), Lacanianism
(Bhabha)—have also been profoundly influenced by Marxism. What about Said’s
use of Gramsci, Bhabha’s use of Althusser and Spivak’s use of Marx, for example?
Having said this, Bartolovich and the other contributors are surely right in noting
the high level of ‘oversimplification, caricature, and trivialization’ (p. 1) present in
‘Marxist’ and ‘postcolonialist’ accounts of one another. Within this context, the
volume aims to reactivate the ‘disavowed Marxist heritage in the theorization of the
(post-)colonial world’ (p. 3) and the disavowed (post-)colonial heritage in the
Marxist world. In order to illustrate what she regards as the banality of mainstream
postcolonial studies today, Bartolovich cites a recent issue of the international
journal Postcolonial Studies and its analysis of Benetton advertising. Rejecting the
economism of Marxism in favour of a ‘semiotic’ reading, the journal editors make a
‘wholesale flight’ from political economy—so characteristic of postcolonial studies
today:
PAGE 5 OF 17
6 COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
[W]hen I’m pushed these days with the old criticism—‘Oh! Spivak is
too hard to understand!’—I laugh, and I say okay. I will give you, just
for your sake, a monosyllabic sentence, and you’ll see that you can’t
rest with it. My monosyllabic sentence is: We know plain prose cheats.
(p. 6)
In the book’s opening chapters, ‘Theory, Politics and the Question of Style’ and
‘Setting Deconstruction to Work’, Morton effectively elaborates on the issues raised
by this passage in what emerges as a confident and convincing reading of Spivak’s
style. Chapters 1 and 2 situate Spivak’s work within the context of deconstruction
and post-structuralist theory in order to illustrate how her aphoristic prose resists the
notion of the subaltern subject as something that can be captured transparently or
straightforwardly ‘represented’. Spivak’s rhetorical strategies, Morton suggests,
allow her to move beyond the limitations of classic Marxism, feminism and
nationalism.
The second chapter goes on to challenge the idea that Spivak’s relationship to
deconstruction runs counter to her political commitment: ‘[a]gainst the charge that
Spivak’s work is opaque and inaccessible, this chapter considers how Spivak has
changed the emphasis of deconstruction by focusing her critical attention on
contemporary political concerns such as globalization and the international division
of labour’ (p. 9).
In the remaining chapters, Morton offers more specific discussions of Spivak’s
work and her critical engagement with subaltern studies (Chapter 3), feminism
(Chapter 4) and postcolonialism (Chapter 6). One of the most helpful chapters for
PAGE 6 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 7
critics already familiar with Spivak’s work is Chapter 5 on ‘Materialism and Value’.
This chapter draws on some of Morton’s specialist research interests to tease out the
frequently neglected significance of Marx for Spivak and Spivak for Marx.
Including an account of the impact of Spivak’s work and a detailed annotated
bibliography, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak is likely to attract both undergraduate and
academic readers.
A less successful introductory text book published this year is Ismail S. Talib’s
The Language of Postcolonial Literatures: An Introduction. In trying to be
comprehensive, The Language of Postcolonial Literatures makes too many
superficial generalizations about too many histories and locations. Starting with the
Roman invasion of England and covering Wales, England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and America, before he
even gets to what he calls the ‘Third World’, Talib tries to do too much and ends up
not doing enough in this text. The book’s plodding narrative is punctuated by
subheadings that have been allowed to proliferate to the extent that they appear after
almost every other paragraph. This ubiquitous signposting has the effect of
fragmenting rather than sharpening the chapters, which are likely to seem pedestrian
to the student reader at which the book is aimed
A more selective, thematic focus might have allowed Talib to capture and
maintain the reader’s attention more effectively. By focusing on the themes and
issues raised by a selected range of postcolonial texts, for example, the book would
have been able to demonstrate its key terms and ideas more engagingly and
thoroughly. Indeed, it is odd that a book on the ‘language of postcolonial literature’
has so little to say about literary texts themselves. Even when literary texts are cited,
Talib’s accounts of them tend to be descriptive rather than analytical.
Finally, it is disappointing that The Language of Postcolonial Literatures takes
English alone as the language of postcolonial writing. While he does acknowledge
there are others, the Anglophone focus misses a valuable opportunity to redress the
marginalization of, for example, Francophone and Hispanic literatures and theories
within postcolonial paradigms.
2. Journals
PAGE 7 OF 17
8 COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
PAGE 8 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 9
PAGE 9 OF 17
10 COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
argued, been discarded in the name of that ‘Cultural Cohesion’ that was the
professed aim and title of the official report into the riots. In Kundani’s view, the old
‘multiculturalist settlement’, which has formed the orthodoxy since the inner city
unrest of the early 1980s, is in the process of being abandoned. The riots of 2001 and
the terrorist attacks of 11 September that year represent milestones in this process.
This reading is dependent on Kundani’s view that multiculturalism was always
really a mode of controlling those second generation non-whites who had begun to
assert themselves on the streets of Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. According to the
author, multiculturalism has meant:
Taking black culture off the streets—where it had been politicised and
turned into a rebellion against the state—and putting it in the council
chamber, in the classroom and on the television, where it could be
institutionalised, managed and reified. Black culture was thus turned
from a living movement into an object of passive contemplation,
something to be ‘celebrated’ rather than acted on. (p. 68)
PAGE 10 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 11
PAGE 11 OF 17
12 COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
PAGE 12 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 13
Africanism. Mbembe argues that these structures, still operating within colonialist
binarisms, ‘are inscribed within an intellectual genealogy based on a territorialized
identity and racial geography … obscuring the fact that while the rapacity of global
capitalism may be at the origins of the tragedy, Africans’ failure to control their own
predatory greed and their own cruelty also led to slavery and subjugation’ (p. 257).
This is, of course, a variant of the longstanding but not uncontroversial argument
that Africans have been complicit in their own disempowerment. The comparative
novelty of Mbembe’s take comes when he argues for a shift of emphasis towards
‘contemporary everyday practices’ in the search for a viable African identity, as
against Marxist and nativist criticism’s consistent undervaluing of the variety of
African experience of colonial conquest. Mbembe concludes: ‘To be sure, there is
no African identity that could be designated by a single term … African identity
does not exist as a substance. It is constituted in varying forms through a series of
practices, notably practices of the self’ (p. 272). Clearly, there is nothing very
startling in the acknowledgement that no single African identity exists; Frantz Fanon
was saying as much 45 years ago. Moreover, to accept Mbembe’s flagellation of his
fellow Africans for colonial complicity in the past, one has to bracket or remove the
practice of neocolonial and strategic manipulation of the continent that is still on-
going. In fact, it might be objected that Mbembe’s effective surrender of the
materialist lens as an optic for critique—and nationalism as a framework for
anti(neo)colonial resistance, in favour of a micropolitics of lived experience—is
potentially disempowering, splitting African identities down into evermore distinct
monadic forms.
Public Culture (14:iii[2002]) contains responses to Mbembe’s piece. While
accepting the limiting nature of those forces identified as hampering the
construction of a meaningful African mode of self-writing, Ato Quayson, in
‘Obverse Denominations: Africa?’ (pp. 585–8) remarks that Africans have never
been able fully to shape the ways in which they are ‘denominated’, but warns that
‘To change the perceptions of our backwardness … we Africans will have to attend
to the material details of our nightmare at the same time as we seek better
denomination’ (p. 587). Paul Gilroy (‘Toward a Critique of Consumer Imperialism’,
pp. 589–91) praises Mbembe’s ‘timely rejections of identity as a unitary
phenomenon’, but worries that he may have reduced ‘the philosophical inquiries
demanded by racial slavery, colonialism, apartheid and … globalisation to a choice
between flight and melancholy resignation’ (p. 590). Bennetta Jules-Rosette
describes Mbembe’s essay as a ‘brilliant exercise in Afro-pessimism’ (p. 603) in
‘Afro-Pessimism’s Many Guises’ (pp. 603–5), whereas Francoise Verges suggests a
more materially informed understanding of African identity, taking into account
how African selfhood is informed by a consideration of essentials such as life
expectancy and the amount of protection a society can offer its members (‘The
Power of Words’, pp. 607–10). Finally, Arif Dirlik—in an essay which may, in the
light of the Second Gulf War of 2003, appear prematurely confident about the
‘pastness’ of active colonialism—speaks of a ‘double transformation’; ‘the
scrambling of colonial spatializations of the world and the problematic
identification of national spaces [which] has done much to call into question
identities that earlier anti-colonial ideologies took for granted’ (p. 612). This
response, entitled ‘Historical Colonialism in Contemporary Perspective’ (pp. 611–
15), is generally sympathetic to Mbembe, lauding his attention to the present revival
PAGE 13 OF 17
14 COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
PAGE 14 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 15
PAGE 15 OF 17
16 COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY
PAGE 16 OF 17
COLONIAL DISCOURSE, POSTCOLONIAL THEORY 17
Commission which was highly critical of the novel’s alleged racism—or, rather, the
residual racism in the attitudes displayed by the central character. Elleke Boehmer,
in ‘Not Saying Sorry, Not Speaking Pain: Gender Implications in Disgrace’ (pp.
342–51) expresses concern over the treatment of women in the text and issues of
bodily violence, while, in contrast, Grant Farred’s ‘The Mundanacity of Violence:
Living in a State of Disgrace’ (pp. 352–62) sees the novel as an accurate if
uncomfortable portrayal of a country where violence has become endemic. The
variety, and often the dissonance, of these and other critical interventions reveal the
potency of this particular text and the ability of Coetzee’s work more generally to
confound the complacencies of celebratory or nativist theories; in this respect,
perhaps Disgrace might be an instance of a new literary form, the post-postcolonial
novel.
Lastly, and unconnected to the volume’s main theme, Arif Dirlik emerges again
with an essay called ‘Rethinking Colonialism: Globalisation, Postcolonialism and
the Nation’ (pp. 428–38). Here, he suggests that nationalism should be seen as a
version of colonialism in the way that it historically subsumed local identities
beneath national ones. The (not particularly original) argument here is that a
preoccupation with the twin issues of colonialism and national identity has kept the
relationship of modern colonialism to capitalism off the critical agenda. Dirlik urges
strongly that we should reconsider the relationship of colonialism and capitalism
present in the forces of globalization, while being careful not to collapse all
distinctions between them. Although this charge is based on a familiar
generalization about work going on in the discipline, Dirlik’s piece is a useful
reminder that globalization is still, in essence, the public face of the same interests
which launched the colonial enterprise, and that whether it be Coca Cola’s battle
with recent brands founded to appeal to Muslim consumers or military attempts to
secure supplies from the world’s second largest oil field in the face of insurgency
and resistance, capitalism and colonialism remain potent forces in today’s
geopolitical landscape.
Books Reviewed
PAGE 17 OF 17