B. A. (Hons.

) English – Semester VI Core Course

Paper XIV : Postcolonial Literatures Study Material

Unit-5 : Background Readings

(a) Frantz Fanon (b) Edward Said
(c) Robert Young (d) Ngugi wa Thiong'o

Edited by: Nalini Prabhakar

Department of English

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

University of Delhi
Paper XIV – Postcolonial Literatures
Unit-5
Background Readings

Edited by:
Nalini Prabhakar
School of Open Learning
University of Delhi
Delhi-110007

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Paper XIV – Postcolonial Literatures
Unit-5
Background Readings

Contents

S. No. Title Pg. No.

(a) Frantz Fanon, ‘The Negro and Language’ in Black Skin, White Masks 01

(b) Edward Said, ‘Introduction’, in Orientalism 07

(c) Robert Young, ‘Colonialism and the Politics of Postcolonial Critique’, 13

in Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction

(d) Ngugi wa Thiong’o, ‘The Language of African Literature’, in 18

Decolonising the Mind, Chapter 1, Sections 4-6.

Prepared by:
Kritika Sharma

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Unit-5 : Background Readings

(a) ‘The Negro and Language’ in Black Skin, White Masks

Frantz Fanon
Kritika Sharma

1.1 Introduction
Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) was born in Martinique, under French colonial rule. Throughout
his career as a psychiatrist, academic, and political philosopher, Fanon produced works that
have become central to postcolonial theory. Two of his most influential books are Black Skin,
White Masks (1952), and The Wretched of the Earth (1961).
The prescribed reading “The Negro and Language” is the first chapter of Fanon’s book
Black Skin, White Masks, in which the author, using concepts from various disciplines like
psychoanalysis, existentialism, and critical race studies, explores what he calls the “problem
of blackness.” Even though brief, the book is a significant example of anti-colonial and anti-
imperialist theory. In it, Fanon studies the effects of colonialism on the psyches of the
colonized people, and how it affects their consciousness and identity. In the first chapter of
the book, he explores the problem of language, arguing that language is a fundamental tool of
colonial oppression. In postcolonial theory, the language-problem is a matter of much debate.
Should the colonized adopt the language of the colonizer which has been imposed on them?
Can a national literature be written in the language of the colonizer? In the prescribed
chapter, Fanon examines the relationship between the colonized and the two very distinct
languages they have to contend with – the language of their lived experience, and that of their
colonizer. This distinction between the native language and the colonizer’s language leads to
a fundamental rupture in the identities of the colonized, which Fanon explores in the
prescribed reading.
1.2 Learning Objectives
After going through this lesson, you will be able to:
- Recognise the integral relationship between language, culture, and identity, and how
this relationship is structured within colonialism.
- Understand the overall thrust of Fanon’s argument.
- Acquire an insight into the language-question in postcolonial theory
1.3 Analytical Summary
Pages 8 – 16 (I ascribe a basic … orality is soon heard)
Fanon begins the chapter by justifying the importance of language in the process of the
formation of identity. Language is one of the most fundamental tools to understand and
define both oneself and others. Since language is a basic tool of communication, and
1
communication is the central process through which communities and relationships within
communities get formed, language becomes necessary to community-formation. Fanon
claims that “to speak is to exist absolutely for the other”, pointing out that it is through
language that one engages with the other. In the case of the black man, that other is the white
man. Fanon accepts the premise that there is a “self-division” in the psyche of the black man–
that he behaves differently with another black man and with a white man – because of the
effects of colonialism. Colonialism accounts for not only the physical subjugation of the
colonized but their mental and psychological subjugation as well.
To speak a language is not only to use the syntax and vocabulary of that language, but
also “to assume a culture”. Language is inseparable from culture. In the light of this, what
does it mean for the colonized to speak/master the language of the colonizer? As Fanon
points out, a black man from the Antilles will be considered more civilized proportionally
with how well he has mastered the French language, the language of the colonizer. Language
is never an innocent or neutral tool of communication, and the “mastery of language affords
remarkable power”. Fanon uses the “Negro of the Antilles” as the representative of all
colonized people to examine what he calls “the problem of language” – particularly, the
intersection of language, identity, and power within colonialism. He claims that this is a
problem faced by all colonized people, whose native language (and therefore, native culture)
is suppressed or erased by the language/culture of the colonizer. This erasure of native
language/culture creates an inferiority complex in the minds of the colonized people. For
them, the colonizer nation becomes a “demigod”, something to be feared and worshipped.
Fanon then gives the example of the black man from Antilles, who while visiting the mother-
country, France, is very aware that there is a stereotype in France about how people from the
colonies speak French, which is not “the French of France/ the Frenchman’s French/ French
French”. So, right from the outset, he is extremely self-conscious of his use of language, and
of representing his entire race. He knows that he will be judged by the way he speaks.
Therefore, he takes care to act against the stereotype of him that already exists in France. In
France, the black man from Antilles, whom Fanon calls “the newcomer” no longer
understands his native language, Creole, and speaks only in standard French.
The title of the book from which this chapter is taken, Black Skin, White Masks, refers to
exactly this kind of colonized subject – who, through his mastery of the colonizer’s language,
becomes or at least tries to become “white”. He acts like he is white, even though he is black-
skinned. Moreover, he becomes critical of his fellow colonized people. Just having visited the
mother-nation affords him the place of “an oracle” – on his return to his native colony, he
becomes “special”, as the one who has been to, and who knows, France, the demigod. Thus,
not only in France, but also on his return to the colony, his behaviour is delicately scrutinized,
and he is expected to live up to the standard of someone who “claims a superiority” on
account of having known the mother-nation. That is, not only does he think of himself to be
in a privileged position, he is also expected by his fellow natives to behave as such. This
leads to a change in his personality. Fanon states that “every dialect is a way of thinking” –
the black man returning to the native country with a new dialect, suggests a new way of
2
thinking and being – he returns a changed man. His language becomes different from the one
used by the group he was born in. This change, according to Fanon, is “evidence of a
dislocation, a separation”. This dislocation, or alienation, in the psyches of the colonized, is a
common subject of postcolonial theory. The colonized are often torn between their native
culture and language, which they want to preserve, and the colonizer’s culture/language
which is not only imposed on them, but is often made necessary for them as the only
available tool of progress. For Fanon, this dislocation is a result of psychological
colonization. In the returned native, it suggests a certain inferiority complex. Fanon goes on
to point out that this inferiority complex is the most prominent in the educated classes.
In France, Fanon claims, even the most educated black man will be treated as
intellectually suspect, and will be patronised and talked down to, just based on the colour of
his skin. The stereotype that “the Negro loves to jabber – the negro is just a child”, will
always affect how he is treated in France, regardless of his mastery of the French language.
To counter that, the black man will always be self-conscious and trying to counter the
stereotype with his behaviour, by trying to master French even more.
Check Your Progress
1. Why does Fanon “ascribe a basic importance to the phenomenon of language”?
2. What is the relationship between language and culture?
3. What concerns does the Black man of the Antilles have when returning from France?
4. According to Fanon, why is there an inferiority complex among the educated classes
of the colonized vis-à-vis the language of the colonizer?
PAGES 16 – 27 (But we have to … let us go on)
While other black poets/authors might turn away from the French language, and write in their
native Creole, thereby asserting their independence, and the “integrity of their personalities”,
Fanon claims that the black man from the Antilles would do no such thing. The Antillean
Negro thinks of his language as an inferior language – a dialect (so, not a real language) as
opposed to standard French (which is a real language); this is an instance of the above-
mentioned inferiority complex. There is a marked difference in the language of lived
experience for the colonized, and the language that formal education imposes upon them. For
Fanon, an education which creates such a rupture from the native culture cannot be useful or
effective.
Acknowledging that “colour prejudice” is an imbecility and iniquity is common-sensical.
What is important is what comes after that acknowledgement. A statement saying the negro is
a link between a monkey and a (white) man is an old and common stereotype; it is also
demonstrably wrong. However, just knowing this is not enough. For Fanon, common-sense
or sympathy are not enough to combat racism. The work of decolonization has to be actively
concerned with eliminating these internalised stereotypes which colonized people have about
themselves. That so much literature and philosophy has been written by the colonized to

3
prove their humanity to the colonizer is true; but the fact that this was needed at all is a result
of the fact that stereotypical theories of race have alienated, or “duped”, both black and white
people. Using various personal anecdotes, Fanon makes the following observations: - “A
white man addressing a Negro behaves exactly like an adult with a child and starts smirking,
whispering, patronizing, cozening” – an attitude all white people assume, regardless of their
own class affiliations. He points out:
“To speak pidgin to a Negro makes him angry – but there is no wish or intention to
anger – but it is this absence of wish, lack of interest, this indifference, this automatic
manner of classifying him, imprisoning him, primitivizing him, decivilizing him, that
makes him angry”.
Therefore, for Fanon, the fact that white people uncritically assume this attitude towards
black people, and act condescendingly as if it is the natural way in which they should be
treating black people, is psychologically damaging to black people. Talking down to anyone
is a symptom of a “dereliction in [one’s] relations with other people”. Talking down suggests
one is not looking upon the other as an equal, or even human. The white man talking down to
the black man, speaking pidgin to him, is an expression of a warning for the black man to
know and keep his own place. In France, for a Russian or a German to speak French badly
might not mean that they are less human or more primitive, and might be ascribed to the fact
that they are foreigners, but this kind of humanity is not afforded to a black man who does
not speak French properly. A black man not speaking French properly is explained by his
lack of culture, history, or civilization, because of his race. For Fanon, this automatic,
uncritical dehumanization is the reason for the striving of contemporary Negroes – to prove
the existence of a black civilization to the white world. Fanon then cites the examples of
movies in which the behaviour and manner of speaking of Negro characters are presented in a
stereotypical and racist way. This type of representation serves as another way to imprison
the black man as the “eternal victim of an essence”. In the eyes of the white man, and often in
his own eyes, the black man is always inferior. For Fanon, what is important is not to educate
the white man to discard this stereotype, but to teach the black man not to be defined by it.
Europeans have a “fixed concept” of the black man, and any black man who breaks away
from that image is a challenge. Fanon states: “Nothing is more astonishing than to hear a
black man express himself properly, for in truth he is putting on the white world”. This
expression of “whiteness” is a reaction by the black man – a response to those who persist in
stereotyping him, a refusal to be defined in the terms of the other.
Fanon goes on to say that in every country there are two kinds of people – those “who
forget who they are”, and those who remember their roots. For the returning native, therefore,
the choice of whether he persists in speaking the native language or French is a choice that
would decide his identity thereon – of which group he will be seen to belong in. Similarly, for
a group of Antilleans in France there are two choices - to either stand with the white world
(by speaking French) or to reject Europe (by continuing to speak Creole). As already stated,

4
language is central to community-formation. Therefore, this kind of choice is significant to
what kind of community the colonized will form amongst themselves. Fanon states:
“My theme being the dis-alienation of the black man, I want to make him feel that
whenever there is a lack of understanding between him and his fellows in the presence
of the white man, there is lack of judgement.”
The rupture that the choice of language can cause amongst colonized communities is a result
of “lack of judgement” – something which in itself is a result of the internalisation of racist
stereotypes by the colonized.
The desire in the colonized to master the French language is a function of the fact that
the colonizer’s language opens more doors and provides more opportunities to them. By
mastering the colonizer’s language, the black man feels himself equal to the colonizer’s
world. The colonizer however, persists to see the French-educated black man as a black man,
first and foremost. Citing the epithets given to the great poet Aime Cesaire such as “a Negro
poet with a University degree” or “a great black poet”, Fanon claims that these assessments
have in themselves “a permanent rub”. Even when he is lauded as a poet, his blackness is
pointed out, almost as if he is a great poet despite being black. Statements like these always
appear like paradoxes to them. Despite the persistent othering that they face, Fanon lauds the
choice of writers like Cesaire to write in French as an empowering choice.
Check Your Progress
1. What does Fanon mean by alienation, and what role does language have to play in the
alienation of the colonized people?
2. What is the language-question within postcolonial theory?
3. What examples does Fanon use to explore the psyche of the colonized subject? Is it
justified to say that his thesis can be extended to all colonized people?
4. What does Fanon mean by the following statement: “To speak a language is to take
on a world, a culture”?
5. Why, according to Fanon, does the native want to speak French? How is such a native
received by the colonizer?
1.4 Summing Up
For Fanon, speaking a particular language is to participate in a particular world and culture.
For postcolonial authors, the choice of language is a complicated one. The Nigerian author
Chinua Achebe, in his speech titled “The African Writer and the English Language” defends
his choice thus:
Is it right that a man should abandon his mother tongue for someone else’s? It looks
like a dreadful betrayal and produces a guilty feeling. But for me, there is no other
choice. I have been given the language and I intend to use it. (348)

5
This is the question that Fanon is exploring in the prescribed chapter. Using the language of
the colonizer opens up a world to the colonized which was not accessible to them before. At
the same time, by using the language of the colonizer, they run the risk of forgetting their
own roots, and (since language is also culture) their culture itself. Fanon mentions how
patronising white people become when talking to black people, even educated ones. This is a
result of the fact that racism is deeply rooted in the psychology of people. While white people
assume the inferiority of black people to be natural, black people often internalise this
inferiority as well. This leads to a rupture and absence of solidarity amongst black people,
which Fanon calls a “lack of judgement”. For Fanon, the work of anti-colonialism should not
concern itself with educating white people about the basic humanity of black people, but
rather with eliminating these internalised prejudices from the psyches of black people
themselves. It must be noted that while Fanon writes about a particular colonized group, that
of black people from the Antilles, his theses apply to all colonized and oppressed people. As
a result, Fanon’s ideas have become a cornerstone of postcolonial theory, and have gone on
to influence other theorists and critics like Homi Bhabha, Ngugi wa Thiong’o etc.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. “English and the African Writer.” Transition, no. 75/76, 1997. JSTOR.
Fanon, Frantz. “The Negro and Language”, in Black Skin, White Masks, tr. Charles Lam
Markmann (London: Pluto Press, 2008).
1.5 Suggestions for Further Reading
Alessandrini, Anthony C. Frantz Fanon: Critical Perspectives. Routledge, 1999.
Mannoni, Octave. Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization. University of
Michigan Press, 1990.
Nayar, Pramod K. Frantz Fanon (Routledge Critical Thinkers). Routledge, 2013.

6
 (b) ‘Introduction’, in Orientalism
Edward Said
Kritika Sharma

1.1 Introduction
Edward Said (1935-2003) is considered one of the pioneers of Postcolonial theory. A
Palestinian American, he taught English Literature at Columbia University. His works
Orientalism (1978) and Culture and Imperialism (1993) are both seminal texts in postcolonial
studies and culture studies. The prescribed reading is his “Introduction” to the book
Orientalism. In this book, Said analyses and critiques Western discourses about the East, that
have served to not only represent but also create a certain idea of the East, in the minds of the
people of both The West and The East. He introduces the term “Orientalism” as a critical
concept, through which such discourses about the East are produced, and studied. Under
colonialism, the relationship between the East and the West has been a skewed one – the
West authorizes certain representations of the East, which remains its Other. It is this power,
and intellectual authority, that the West continues to hold over the East, even in the post-
colonial era, which is the subject of Said’s critique.
1.2 Learning Objectives
After going through this lesson, you will be able to:
- Recognise the various distinct but interrelated meanings of the term Orientalism.
- Understand the relevance of Said’s intervention to the field of Postcolonial Theory.
- Acquire an insight into the problem of the relationship between the West and the
East, where one continues to hold power and authority over the other.
1.3 Analytical Summary
Part I
Edward Said starts the “Introduction” to his book Orientalism by giving the reader three
distinct but related definitions of the tern “orientalism”. He calls the Orient “almost a
European invention”, meaning that the way the Orient is represented in European discourses
is the way that it comes to be thought of by everyone. Said claims that Orientalism, then, is “a
way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient’s special place in
European Western experience”. He thinks of the Orient as the mirror in which Europe sees
itself reflected, and as something in opposition to which Europe defines itself. He claims that
Europe makes the Orient into its surrogate self. However, Said is careful to point out that this
does not suggest that the Orient is only an imaginary idea. The orient has a material existence
in the mind of the European and a place in the material culture of Europe. Here are the three
interrelated definitions of the term “orientalism”:
7
 1. The academic meaning of the term, which has now become too vague, but it implies
any type of teaching, writing, or research about the Orient.
2. The general meaning of the term as “a style of thought based upon an ontological and
epistemological distinction made between ‘the Orient’ and … ‘the Occident’”: any
form of knowledge that presupposes a fundamental opposition between the Orient and
the West.
3. The historical and material meaning as “the corporate institution for dealing with the
Orient… by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by
teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for
dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the orient”: the process by which
certain forms of knowledge about the Orient are produced, disseminated, and
consumed.
Said states that one needs to understand Orientalism as a discourse in the Foucauldian sense
of the word. That is, Orientalism is a set of ideas and beliefs, that produces knowledge in the
form of discourse. It is because of this that Europe “was able to manage – and even produce –
the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and
imaginatively”. Orientalism is a discourse that produces a certain idea of the Orient, that fixes
the Orient in a certain definition, and does not leave it “a free subject of thought and action.”
Check Your Progress
1. What are the different ways in which Said defines the term “Orientalism”?
2. What does Said mean by calling the Orient an “invention” of the West
Part II
He begins part 2 by pointing out that neither the Orient nor the Occident are just there, as
“inert forces of nature”. They are both constructed by men. The Orient has an entire history
and culture of its own that has rendered it as a reality to the West. He also claims that the
Orient and the West “support and reflect” each other. He, however, qualifies this relationship
between the two in three ways:
1. The orient has a brute reality, it is not merely an idea. Said’s study of Orientalism is
not concerned with how much the idea corresponds to reality, but with what he calls
the “internal consistency of Orientalism” itself. He is, that is, not concerned with how
accurately Orientalism presents the reality of the Orient, but with the assumptions and
workings of the discourse of Orientalism in itself.
2. One cannot talk of the Orient without considering questions of power and domination.
He points out that the invention of the Orient did not happen innocently or naturally.
The relationship between the Orient and the Occident is one of power and hegemony.
3. Orientalism is not just a “structure of lies or myths.” It is a well-formed structure of
theories and practices that create an Orient in the mind of the European, and therefore

8
 have material consequences for the social, political and economic relationships
between the Orient and the Occident.
Using Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, he claims that it is that which gives Orientalism its
“durability”. It is the Occident’s hegemonic relationship with the Orient, and by extension, its
hegemonic production of a certain Orientalist discourse, that creates in the mind of the
European a belief in European superiority, which then becomes a feature in his relationship to
the Orient. As Said says, this hegemony allows the European to “think about [the Orient],
with very little resistance on the Orient’s part.”
Check Your Progress
1. Said claims that the Orient as well as the Occident are not natural, but constructed
realities. What does he mean by that?
2. How does Said employ Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, in his analysis of
Orientalism?
Part III
Addressing the methodology and the argument of his book, in Part 3 of the chapter, Said self-
reflexively analyses his own assumptions and analyses. He points out three aspects of his
own contemporary reality that have led him to “a particular course of research and writing”
evident in Orientalism:
1. “The distinction between pure and practical knowledge”: Said points out that especially
in humanities, one tends to distinguish between two types of knowledge – pure, which is
wholly abstract and theoretical, and practical, which has implications on policy-making
and politics. However, he critiques this simplistic distinction by pointing out that no
scholar is free from his material circumstances and the realities of his class, and socio-
political affiliations. Essentially, there is no form of knowledge, pure or practical, that
can be deemed “non-political.” The belief that “true knowledge is fundamentally non-
political” is a mistaken belief. Therefore, no European scholar, who claims to be a
student of the Orient, can claim to be approaching it objectively. His subject position as
European or American will always inform his scholarship. He states: “My real argument
is that Orientalism is – and does not simply represent – a considerable dimension of
modern political-intellectual culture, and as such has less to do with the Orient than it
does with “our” world.” That is, Orientalism does not reflect an existing culture, it
creates one. And in doing so, it says more about the producers of the discourse – the
West, than about its subject – the Orient. Critiquing the idea of “pure” scholarship again,
he claims that one has the tendency to think that individual authors are not constrained
by political, institutional, and ideological affinities – but they are. He critiques the
paucity of attempts to bridge the gap “between the super-structural and the base levels in
textual, historical scholarship.” His own methodology is one of trying to bridge this gap.
Said’s book attempts, at the same time, a theoretical (base) as well as a politico-cultural
(super-structural) analysis of Orientalism. He points out that this kind of attempt is often
9
 stopped by what he calls the “specialist argument”: that a student of literature or
philosophy is not trained in political analysis. Said critiques this too, by pointing out that
political analysis should very much be the domain of the literature or philosophy student
as well. For one, as he claims, there was no author in the 19th century who was not aware
of the fact of empire. So, to ignore that knowledge while studying any 19th century
literary text would be wrong. He also points out that it was these very ideological and
political constraints that acted productively upon writers – they made writers produce
discourses and knowledges about the Orient. He claims to be studying Orientalism then,
as an exchange between individual authors, and their larger socio-political realities,
which always included the fact of imperialism. Wishing to study orientalism as a “willed
human work”, Said claims that his particular approach will address both politics and
culture.
2. “The Methodological Question”: here, Said addresses the question of the scope and
choice of the texts that he plans to study in his book. In the case of Orientalism, he
claims, there is the problem of identifying the “problematic”, a term he borrows from
Louis Althusser, meaning a point from which analysis can begin, as well as the problem
of selection, of deciding which texts, authors, and periods are suitable to his study, given
the vastness of his subject matter. Thus, he says he has confined his analysis to British,
French and American Orientalism. Britain and France were two of the biggest colonial
powers before the Second World War, and America has taken their place ever since after
that war. He acknowledges the centrality of German scholarship to Oriental studies but
expresses that he wouldn’t discuss it exhaustively in his book. He also distinguishes
between Anglo-French and German Orientalism, and claims that unlike Anglo-French
Orientalism, German Orientalism never developed “a sustained national interest in the
Orient”: it was “almost exclusively, a scholarly, or at least a classical, Orient.” What
both had in common, however, was their intellectual authority over the Orient. Said goes
on to make the following profound argument about the nature of authority:
There is nothing mysterious or natural about authority. It is formed, irradiated,
disseminated; it is instrumental, it is persuasive; has status, it establishes canons of
taste and value; it is virtually indistinguishable from certain ideas it dignifies as true,
and from traditions, perceptions, and judgements its forms, transmits, reproduces.
Above all, authority can, indeed must, be analyzed.
In line with his thesis in the rest of the book, he claims that authority, including the kind of
academic, intellectual authority that the West holds over the Orient, is never natural or given.
It is always created through relations of power and domination, and in turn, it legitimates, or
authorizes certain permissible ways of thinking and talking about its chosen subjects.
Said names the two main methodological devices he has employed in his study:
“strategic location”, which is an analysis of the author’s position in his text vis-à-vis the
Orient, and “strategic formation”, which is an analysis of how texts, individually and
collectively, acquire “referential power” in culture, that is, how they acquire and perpetuate
10
their intellectual authority. Every writer who writes about the Orient, positions himself
specifically in relation to the orient, in the tone, style, description, and narrative voice that he
employs in his work. He also assumes a certain pre-existing knowledge of the Orient,
therefore, locating his work in a larger body of work about the Orient already existing. Said
emphasises his focus, in his book, on the exterior relationship of his chosen texts to their
subject, and not their “interiority”. What he means is that, as also stated earlier, he is
interested in the logic of the Orientalist discourse, and not its consistency of correspondence
to a certain existing reality. The Orientalist presents “representations” of the Orient, not its
“natural depictions.” Thus, in any analysis of Orientalism, the “things to look for are the
style, speech [etc.] … not correctness of the representation.” Since, Orientalism is a product
of the West (even though, of course, it has a certain relationship to the geographical space it
represents), it is internally consistent in its “highly articulated” set of relationships to not the
Orient, but to the West itself. Said points out that there are many different kinds of
Orientalism – Orientalisms, more accurately – based on who is creating it. He then goes on to
characterize his own perspective towards Orientalism in his book as a “hybrid” one – one that
is at the same time historical and anthropological, informed by both the general and the
specific. Admitting the debt he owes to Foucault’s scholarship, he also claims a significant
point of departure it. Unlike Foucault, who found the relevance of analysing individual
authors’ work as minimal, Said claims that in his book, he will talk about individual authors.
As he stated earlier in this chapter, an individual author is a product of his larger socio-
politico-cultural context, and his work is a result of his relationship with his context. Ignoring
individual authors, therefore, would not be fruitful to Said’s analysis – which is both
historical and anthropological. He goes on to point out what his book is not – it is not a
complete history of orientalism, nor a general essay on culture and imperialism (one he does
go on to write later in his career, a book titled Culture and Imperialism). He claims that while
his target audience is any existing or potential student of Orientalism, he has also written this
book in order to “illustrate [to the formerly colonized peoples] the formidable structure of
cultural domination, and the dangers and temptations of employing this structure upon
themselves or upon others.” Orientalism is not a discourse of the past; it has contemporary
existence and relevance. Given that, Said’s book is addressed to anyone who finds himself
imbricated in this relationship between the Orient and the West.
3. In the last section titled “the Personal Dimension”, Said explicates personal reasons as to
why he found it necessary to write this book, and the ways in which his personal
affiliations have influenced his critique: he points out his own awareness of being an
Oriental. As an “Arab Palestinian in the West”, he finds himself personally delimited
and defined by an Orientalist discourse. He claims that the “reinforcement of
stereotypes” in the postmodern age has made him grapple with anti-Arab and anti-
Islamic prejudices prevalent in American society. As an Arab-Palestinian, he has no
political existence in the West, and finds himself represented “either as a nuisance or an
Oriental.” In a self-reflexive way, he also goes on to point out his status as a “sharer of
Western anti-Semitism”. Interestingly, he mentions how anti-Semitism and Orientalism

11
 resemble each other – both are discourses of power, hegemony, and othering. As Said
states, acknowledging this similarity and making it a part of one’s analysis would give
one “a better understanding of the way cultural domination has operated.”
Check Your Progress
1. How does Said characterize the methodology he has utilised in his book Orientalism?
2. What is the difference between “pure” and “practical” knowledge? Does Said think it
is a useful distinction?
3. In what ways does Said use Foucault’s scholarship in his critique? In what ways does
he differ from Foucault?
4. According to Said, pure objective knowledge is not possible. Why? Do you agree?
1.4 Summing Up
Edward Said’s Orientalism is a profoundly rigorous critique of Western discourses about the
East. In the “Introduction” to the book, he defines the term “Orientalism”, moves on to study
the ways in which the West depicts, describes, and therefore, creates the East, and finally,
addresses the methodologies, assumptions, and analyses he has utilised in his book. Said also
points out the importance of a cultural and political critique of Orientalist sources of
knowledge, and the relevance of studying individual authors as part of that critique. While
Said borrows ideas from Althusser, Gramsci, and Foucault, he also builds upon them, or
departs from them, in a typically Said-ian manner. Said’s book is a ground-breaking one; it
inaugurates an entirely new field of postcolonial studies, as well as a new hybrid and
interdisciplinary methodology of carrying out critique.
Works Cited
Said, Edward. “Introduction.” Orientalism. Penguin, 1978.
1.5 Suggestions for Further Reading
Ashcroft, Bill, and Pal Ahluwalia. Edward Said (Routledge Critical Thinkers). Routledge,
2010.
Quinn, Riley. An Analysis of Edward Said’s Orientalism. Macat Library, 2017.
Walia, Shelley. Edward Said and the Writing of History. Totem Books, 1999.

12
 (c) ‘Colonialism and the Politics of Postcolonial Critique’, in
Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction
Robert Young
Kritika Sharma

1.1 Introduction
Robert C. Young (b. 1950) is a British academic and postcolonial theorist. The prescribed
reading is a chapter titled “Colonialism and the Politics of Postcolonial Critique”, from his
book Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. This book is a significant intervention in
postcolonial theory, since it charts the development of anti-colonial theory from within the
field of postcolonial studies, a field which according to Young, borrows the fundamental
framework of Marxist theory. Young is one of the first postcolonial critics to study the
genealogy of postcolonial theory in its affiliation to Marxist revolutions, and liberation
struggles among oppressed peoples. Tying together workers’ struggles in both the colonizing
and the colonized worlds, Young draws a connection between class struggle and anti-colonial
efforts everywhere. In the prescribed chapter, Young emphasises both the historical roots of
postcolonialism in Marxist thought as well as the contemporary relevance they both hold for
each other. Young also critiques the term postcolonialism, suggesting that “tricontinentalism”
is perhaps a more apt, and politically nuanced term to use instead of postcolonialism.
1.2 Learning Objectives
After going through this lesson, you will be able to:
- Recognise the differences between the terms “postcolonialism”, “anti-colonialism”,
and “tri-continentalism”.
- Understand the relevance of Marxist theory to the field of Postcolonial studies.
- Acquire an insight into the contemporary significance of the relationship between
anti-colonial struggles of the past and the present, and working class struggles
everywhere.
1.3 Analytical Summary
Pages 1-5 (In May 2000, … source of its epistemologies)
In this chapter, Robert Young makes an intersectional and interdisciplinary critique of
postcolonial theory, exploring its stated concerns, as well as suggesting directions it could
take in the future. Young begins the chapter with a comparison of the terms
“postcolonialism” and “anti-colonialism.” He points out that historically, the two terms have
been defined in ways quite distinct from each other – postcolonialism was associated with
diaspora, migration, and a certain internationalism, while anti-colonialism was associated
first with a “provincial nationalism”, and later with a “national internationalism”. The latter
association was a result of the recognition that anti-colonialism too, just like postcolonialism,
13
was a product of the diaspora, a mixture of the national and the international, the local and
the foreign, a combination of knowledges both local and universal, and was made possible
through wide collaborative networks spanning various political organizations across the
world. That is, instead of a “provincial nationalism”, as was first believed, anti-colonialism
was also an international phenomenon, especially after the Boer War of the early 1900s. It
was a “decentered” alliance between the colonized people of Asia, Africa, and Latin
America, consciously formed to counter “global imperialism”. This emphasis on
internationalism forms a fundamental premise of Young’s work in postcolonial theory.
Quoting Aime Cesaire, Young claims that “fascism was a form of colonialism brought
home to Europe.” Around the time of the First World War, the rest of the world was already
divided up between the European colonial powers, as a result of which, they turned their
desire of territorial expansion inward towards Europe itself – a phenomenon which took the
form of fascism, resulting in two World Wars. It is not surprising therefore, that the cost that
the colonial powers had to pay to defeat Germany was to gradually lose hold over their
colonies. However, Young goes on to claim, that the end of The Second World War, which
was followed by many former colonies successfully becoming independent, did not lead to an
end to colonialism itself. Calling the USA “the world’s last significant remaining colonial
power”, he points out that the USA still controls many territories which could be called
colonies, because its acquisition of them happened “without reference to the wishes of their
indigenous inhabitants”. While Europe and its former colonies that have now achieved
independence and are in the process of decolonizing themselves try to come to terms with the
legacy of colonialism, there are various territories in the world where anti-colonial struggles
go on currently – Taiwan, Kashmir, Sarhaoui Democratic Arab Republic, Palestine, West
Bank etc. Simultaneously, many peoples of the world still seek independence, and many
“fourth-world nations” still seek fundamental rights. Young’s argument is that postcolonial
critique should take all these realities into account. Postcolonial theory, by its very nature,
must take into consideration both the past and the present. As he claims, “postcolonial theory
is itself a product of [the] dialectical process” between the anti-colonial movements of the
past (which led to the independence of various former colonies) and anti-colonial politics of
the present (which according to him, remain the inspiration for the struggles of oppressed
people everywhere). Addressing his own methodology, Young justifies his preferred use of
the terms “three continents”, and “tricontinental” over the terms “third world”, “the [Global]
South”, and “the non-west”. The latter terms often carry negative, derogatory connotations,
while “tricontinental” speaks of a powerful history, and suggests an international coalition
between the three continents of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, that are united by their
colonial history and contemporary anti-colonial struggles. He claims that “tri-continentalism”
is a better name for what we know as “postcolonialism” because of this very internationalism.
Check Your Progress
1. How does Young distinguish between “postcolonialism” and “anti-colonialism”?

14
 2. Why are the terms “third world” and “South” problematic, according to Young?
What term does he suggest we use instead of these?
Pages 5-11 (Postcolonial – or tricontinental …. the world today)
Young goes on to claim the special status of colonialism – colonialism was not an accidental
or necessary product of modernity. It was created as a conscious system which was global in
its scope, and which forced all the colonized nations of the world, regardless of the diversities
of their local cultures, to follow a common economic path. The repercussions of this are still
significant, as that economic system, created by the West, still dominates the entire world. As
Young points out “Political liberation did not bring economic liberation – and without
economic liberation, there can be no political liberation.” Young points out the history of
anti-colonialism, claiming that it is as old as colonialism itself. That is, while right from its
very beginning, colonialism has justified itself in terms of the benefits (of “civilization” or
modernity) that it brings to the colonized people, there has always been a simultaneous
contestation of those claims, given the “extraordinary suffering in human terms” that it
caused. What makes postcolonial critique distinct is that it takes into account the continuing
“ramifications of colonialism in both colonizing and colonized societies.” It not only critiques
the history of colonialism, but also engages with the contemporary ways in which colonialism
continues to affect many aspects of culture.
He moves on to discussing the relationship between Marxist theory and Postcolonial
theory. Since the fundamental assertion of postcolonialism is that the economic domination
of the Global North over the Global South is the reason for “many of the wrongs… against
humanity”, the most logical framework for any postcolonial critique, according to Young, has
to be a Marxist one. Therefore, tricontinental theorists have often adapted Marxist theory to
the indigenous contexts of various non-European regions. He also claims that one reason for
this natural affinity between Marxism and postcolonialism is that Marxism “has always been
in some sense anti-Western”, since it was developed as a critique of western economic
systems. So, anti-colonial theory has operated from a Marxist perspective but at the same
time has adapted that Marxism to non-western contexts, to the specific concerns and issues of
the local region, while also recognising its affinity with a larger network of international
politics. He extends this argument further; not only is anti-colonialism informed by Marxism,
it also builds up on Marxist theory in its own way. Young suggests that postcolonial theory
should also include a critique of Marxist practice, by concerning itself with human rights
everywhere, critiquing oppressive systems of all persuasions – “capitalist, socialist, militarist
and fascist”. Moreover, Postcolonial theory adds another aspect to the Marxist economic
critique – it also addresses the subjective effects of colonialism. That is, it makes not only
economic colonialism but also psychological colonialism its concern. This has led to a
growing “culturalism” of theory in general. There is a renewed recognition of cultural politics
on the world stage, a model that has been adopted by various movements like feminism and
black activism. He quotes from the Manifesto of a meeting of the Organisation of African
Unity First: “in all cases, armed struggle for liberation was and is a pre-eminently cultural

15
act.” Here, one must note the affinity between Young’s encouragement of a including culture
as a part of socio-political critique, and Said’s methodology, described in the previous section
of this lesson, which claims to do exactly that. Both Young and Said are claiming that any
intellectual analysis of contemporary politics and political movements must necessarily be a
cultural analysis as well. This also marks an integral relationship between the disciplines of
postcolonial theory and Culture Studies.
Young justifies the idea of cultural politics, claiming that the growing culturalism of
politics as well as theory can only be fruitful – it could lead to a more nuanced, intersectional,
and sensitive politics that takes into account people’s subjective experiences. It is not a
replacement of but a complement to traditional modes of knowledge. This dialogue between
the two modes of knowledge – traditional and cultural – begins with the recognition that the
fundamental power structures historically created by colonialism are still in operation,
perhaps in slightly altered ways. However, he warns against interpreting this statement as a
homogenization of the Global North and the Global South, as thinking of all of the Global
North as always already the oppressor, and the Global South as always already the oppressed.
Such a reading ignores the sprawling class diversity within both the North and the South. As
Young points out,
the north-south division [does] not devalue the struggles of those oppressed through
class or minoritarian status within the heartlands of contemporary capitalism.
Colonialism always operated internally as well as externally, and the stratification of
societies still continues.
While the international solidarity of workers still continues to inform political practice and
activism internationally, it is often undercut by the assumption that all of the West is the
oppressor and all of the non-West the oppressed.
Towards the end of the chapter, Young reiterates the influence that Marxist movements
have had on anti-colonial practice. He emphasises especially, the role of the Bolshevik
revolution, saying, “for the first time, a government of a powerful state was explicitly
opposed to western imperialism in principle and practice.” Because of its affinities to both
Marxist theory and Culture Studies, Young claims, that postcolonial critique is fundamentally
“hybrid” – it is “the product of a clash of cultures that brought it into being; it is
interdisciplinary and transcultural in its theory and … effects.” It also is, and must be
adaptable – “its orientation will change according to the political priorities of the moment”.
The political concerns of the past might not be relevant today. Political movements, including
anti-colonial movements, must be ready to change with the changing political concerns.
Thus, according to Young, postcolonial theory is not a closed or delimited discipline, its
frontiers are constantly changing and adapting. He adds that it still has a lot to do and
achieve. Postcolonial or anti-colonial scholarship should continue to “seek and develop new
forms of engaged theoretical work that contributes to the creation of dynamic ideological and
social transformations.” The boundaries of this discipline are porous and constantly

16
responsive to intellectual and political progress. Concluding with making yet another case for
interdisciplinarity, Young states:
It is possible to make effective political interventions within and beyond its own
disciplinary field by developing significant connections between the different forms of
intellectual engagement and activism in the world today.
The only effective anti-colonialism, therefore, is one which does not stay confined to limits
created by history, but constantly seeks to draw newer intellectual associations with other
existing disciplines, which, at first sight, might seem completely disconnected from
postcolonial concerns.
Check Your Progress
1. What is the relationship between Marxist theory and anti-colonial theory?
2. Why, according to Young, is “cultural politics” necessary? What is the role of culture
in anti-colonial practice?
3. What does Young mean by the “special status” of colonialism as a system?
4. According to Young, anti-colonial theory must be interdisciplinary and adaptable.
Why?
1.4 Summing Up
In this chapter, Young emphasises that the political work of post-colonialism and anti-
colonialism, in both academic theory and political practice, must be interdisciplinary, open to
change, adaptable, and must take local cultures into account. He critiques the use of terms
like “third world”, while suggesting the use of “tricontinental” as a preferred alternative. For
Young, exploring the history of postcolonialism is incomplete without acknowledging its
Marxist framework. Young draws a genealogy of postcolonial critique vis-à-vis its debt to
Marxist practice and international workers’ movements, and goes on to suggest its future
direction as one which must be hybrid in nature. Postcolonial critique must be grounded in a
critique of colonialism, but at the same time, it must be open to emerging political struggles
everywhere. Young’s work is significant in raising the important issues of internationalism,
political practice, and human rights within the field of postcolonial studies.
Works Cited
Young, Robert C. “Colonialism and the Politics of Postcolonial Critique”. Postcolonialism:
An Historical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.
1.5 Suggestions for Further Reading
Stam, Robert, and Ella Shohat. “Whence and Whither Postcolonial Theory?” New Literary
History 43:2, 2012. JSTOR.
Young, Robert. Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2003

17
 (d) ‘The Language of African Literature’, in Decolonising the Mind
Chapter 1, Sections 4-6,
Ngugi wa Thiong’o
Kritika Sharma

1.1 Introduction
Ngugi wa Thiong’o (b.1938) is a Kenyan novelist, playwright, and postcolonial theorist. He
wrote his early works in English before abandoning it to write in his native language Gikuyu.
The chapter “The Language of African Literature” is taken from his 1986 book Decolonising
the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. In this book, Ngugi weighs in on
what has come to be known as the “language debate” in postcolonial theory. Since language
is recognized as fundamental to one’s identity, culture, and history, the choice of which
language to write in is not just a practical choice for writers but one that is also political and
ideological. Therefore, postcolonial authors share a fraught relationship with the language of
the colonizer, as well as with their native language. On one side, authors like Chinua Achebe
and Salman Rushdie advocate the use of colonist languages like English and French, for
reasons of practicality as well as that they afford a wider reception and engagement with an
international audience. These authors also recognise the possibility of subversion inherent in
postcolonial writers using the language of the colonizer. On the other side of this debate,
authors like Ngugi advocate a more direct engagement with native and vernacular languages,
if not an outright rejection of the languages of the colonizer. As the following discussion of
the prescribed sections would show, Ngugi sees the use of the language of the colonizer as a
result of “mental colonization”. For Ngugi, the only way for decolonization to be effective is
if language is also decolonized.
1.2 Learning Objectives
After reading this lesson, you will be able to:
- Recognize the significance of the ‘language question’ in postcolonial theory.
- Develop a clear understanding of Ngugi’s intervention in this debate.
- Acquire an insight into Ngugi’s critique of so-called ‘African Literature’, which is
produced by the petty-bourgeoisie class, and in the languages of the colonizer.
1.3 Analytical Summary
Section 4
Ngugi begins the Section 4 of the chapter “The Language of African Literature”, by pointing
out the dual character of language – it is both a tool of communication, as well as “a carrier of
culture and history”. In its first role, as a means of communication, he lists three aspects of
language:

18
 1. Language is the fundamental relation between human beings, and it is unique to
humans. It is a tool of co-operation, something that is central to the human process of
production through division of labour. Ngugi associates this aspect with Marx’s
concept of the “language of real life”.
2. Language as speech: It is a means which, through spoken word, mediates between
human beings.
3. Language as written signs: a later historical development than speech, but serving the
same function – of mediation between human beings.
The relationship between these three aspects of a language influences how harmonious the
functioning of society is. For a child growing up, his experience of language is a determinant
of his sensibility. Thus, the more the three aspects of language as communication correspond
to each other, the more harmonious is a child’s social experience. Ngugi’s use of Marx here is
significant, since his work evidences an abiding influence of Marx. Throughout this chapter,
Ngugi makes a class-conscious critique of African literature, seeing language as a
fundamental part of labour relations between human beings.
Language, however, is not only a tool of communication. It is also the basis of culture.
The development and evolution of a language also informs the evolution of a distinct culture,
with its own “moral, ethical and aesthetic values”. As Ngugi states: “Language as culture is
the collective memory bank of a people’s experience in history”. Language is therefore,
fundamental to the culture, history, and values of a society. Ngugi then lists three aspects of
language as culture:
1. Culture is both a product of as well as a reflection of history. Culture creates in the
consciousnesses of people images of the history of the world to which they belong.
2. Culture as an “image-forming agent”: A child’s conception of his culture, and by
extension his identity, depends on the way language helps forms images in his mind.
Ngugi states, “Language as culture is thus mediating between me and my own self;
between my own self and other selves; between me and nature.” Language is a
fundamental means through which one understands oneself, one’s fellow humans, and
society itself. One’s relationship with the world is determined by the relationship
between the images formed in one’s mind by culture and corresponding reality.
3. Culture creates images of reality in one’s mind through a specific language. While the
capacity for language in human beings is universal, particular cultures are transmitted
through particular languages. Each language therefore, carries a specific culture with
it.
These two characteristics of language – as culture, and as communication, are intricately
related to each other. They inform each other. As Ngugi states “Communication creates
culture; culture is a means of communication.”

19
Check Your Progress
1. What does Ngugi mean by the “dual character” of language?
2. What, according to Ngugi, are the three aspects of language as communication
and language as culture respectively?
3. What is the relationship between communication and culture vis-à-vis language?
Section 5
In Section 5 of the chapter, he explores the logical implications of the conclusions of the
previous section in a colonized society. If language is fundamental to the history, culture, and
identity of individuals and societies, what happens to a child in a colonized society, on whom
a foreign language, that of the colonizer is imposed, Ngugi asks. He claims that while the real
aim of colonialism is to control people’s wealth, by controlling what he, quoting Marx in the
previous section, called “the language of real life”, this kind of desired economic control
cannot be effective without “mental control” of the colonized as well. Here, one notes an
echo of Fanon’s thesis of the ramifications of psychological colonization as well. To wield
this mental control over the colonized, the colonizer uses a two-pronged process – of
devaluing the native culture, and of elevating their own. And this happens through the control
of language. Dominating the language of the colonized would mean dominating their history,
culture, ideas, values, as well. The harmony that Ngugi mentioned in the previous section
between the three aspects of language is broken, when a child growing up with one language
is forced to study and learn using a foreign language which does not reflect his lived
experience. For that child, the language of education and learning always remains foreign,
and therefore, education itself becomes only a “cerebral activity and not an emotionally felt
experience". Since the language of formal education for colonized children is a foreign
language, there is always a disconnect between the sensibility of the child (formed by his
formal education) and his natural environment. Ngugi calls this experience “colonial
alienation”, an alienation reinforced by a Eurocentric education, where all subjects take for
granted the centrality of Europe and a European way of thought. Such an education disorients
a colonized child’s sensibility - he is made to look at, study, and understand the world from
the perspective of a language, and therefore culture, which is not naturally his. Ngugi defines
this alienation as “seeing oneself from outside oneself as if one was another self”. The
colonized subject is forced to look at himself reflected in a mirror which is essentially
European, and which does not represent his reality. Even in the works of the great writers and
philosophers of Europe, like Hegel, Hume, and Jefferson, the colonized subject is associated
with inferiority and stupidity. The colonized subject internalizes this kind of negative image
of himself, which affects his relationship to himself and to his world. Ngugi cites the great
writer Leopold Senghor as an example of this negative self-image. Senghor claimed that he
would have chosen to write in the French language instead of his native language, even if it
had not been imposed upon him. Ngugi also critiques Nigerian author Chinua Achebe’s
gratitude to his inheritance of the English language. He sees the trend of African writers using
and praising the languages of the colonizers as a result of their mental colonization. As he
20
states at the end of this section: “It is the final triumph of a system of domination when the
dominated start singing its virtues.”
Check Your Progress
1. What does Ngugi mean by “mental colonization”?
2. Ngugi calls the experience of the colonized subject who is exposed to a foreign
language as the tool of his formal education “colonial alienation”. What does he
mean by that?
3. Does Ngugi agree with Achebe’s stance on the use of English. Why or why not?
Section 6
Section 6 of the chapter is Ngugi’s critique of the literature written by Africans in European
languages, which he claims has always been the literature of the “petty-bourgeoisie”, of the
educated, privileged class. He states that the petty-bourgeoise in itself is a diverse class,
consisting of two main types: the “comprador bourgeoisie” who seek an alliance with the
colonizer, and the “nationalist or patriotic bourgeoisie” who envision an independent national
economy, even if modelled after European forms like capitalism and socialism. It is the
literature produced by the latter that he critiques in this section. He claims that this literature,
because it is written in European languages, has been helpful on an international stage by
humanizing Africa, and proving the existence of its complex and dignified history to a largely
foreign audience. Internally this literature helped to consolidate this class – by giving it
common themes, and a common means of expressing them. When it first began, this
literature formed a veritable critique of Europe, in its anti-colonial and anti-imperialist
themes. This was a hopeful, optimistic literature. But following the rise and dominance of the
comprador bourgeoisie who instead of critiquing Europe, sought an alliance with the
imperialist powers, in what Ngugi calls a neo-colonial arrangement, this literature became
less optimistic, more cynical and disillusioned, and a “post-independence betrayal of hope.”
This literature sought a native audience, people of the working classes, the victims of this
betrayal. This search for a more native, working-class audience is also reflected in the forms
that this literature assumed – which were simpler, more direct, and did not homogenize
Africa but attempted a class analysis of the diversity within Africa. Ngugi claims, however,
that this change in the literature was rendered ineffective because of its language choice –
because it was still being written in the languages of the colonizer. It was trapped in its
choice, unable to reach its target audience, who did not consume literature written in
European languages. He ascribes the weakness of this literature to its audience. This literature
was not actually being read by working class people, for whom it was supposedly written, but
only by the petty-bourgeoisie. By its very nature, the petty-bourgeoisie have a “vacillating
psychological make-up” because of their “indeterminate economic position”. That is, it is a
“chameleon-like” class whose sympathies, concerns, and alliances keep shifting depending
on which direction historical forces are taking – it can become revolutionary or reactionary,
not having a fixed ideological position of its own. Since it is this class that was producing

21
‘African’ literature, it presented its position, predicaments, and problems, as those of Africa
itself. That is, it claimed to represent all of Africa. Therefore, it presented its own crisis of
identity as that of a crisis of identity of all of Africa. Its literature came to be known as
“African Literature”, claiming ascendancy over literature written in African languages. This
literature also falsely produced a European language speaking African peasantry and working
class, “a clear negation or falsification of the historical process and reality” – a class, Ngugi
claims, that exists only in novels and dramas, and has no actual basis in reality. As Ngugi
claims, if the petty-bourgeoisie had its way, African languages would be eliminated
completely.
In the final section, Ngugi therefore, makes a class-based critique of so-called ‘African
literature’. In an interview with Charles Cantalupo, Ngugi calls this literature an instance of
“literary identity theft”: “Europhone African literature has stolen the identity of African
literature; it wears the mask of African literature.” (6) He calls for an “Afro-African
literature” instead, a literature written in African languages (6). For Ngugi, real ‘African
literature’ is literature written in African languages, and one that speaks to the peasant and the
worker, a claim which, as Joseph Mbele points out, is not entirely unproblematic (147).
African society is far more diverse and also consists of people and classes that are other than
those of the peasant and worker. Regardless, Ngugi’s critique of the language of African
literature is relevant.
Check Your Progress
1. These sections are taken from Ngugi’s book titled Decolonizing the Mind. What
does he mean by “decolonizing”? How, according to Ngugi, can literature/culture be
decolonized?
2. What is the basis of Ngugi’s critique of African literature written in European
languages?
3. What, according to Ngugi, is “Afro-African literature”? How is it different from
African Literature as the world knows it?
4. Why, according to Ngugi, has the African literature written in European languages
been ineffective?
5. According to Ngugi, what is the role that the petty-bourgeoisie has played in the
formation of African literature? How does Ngugi critique this role?
6. Compare Fanon’s and Ngugi’s views on the role of language in the processes of
colonization and decolonization.
1.4 Summing Up
The prescribed excerpts from Ngugi’s Decolonising the Mind provide an insightful
introduction to Ngugi’s views on decolonization – a process he claims is impossible without
linguistic decolonization. Since language was a tool used by the colonizer to ensure their
domination, it must be, necessarily, the central tool through which decolonization happens as
22
well. In an essay on Ngugi’s intervention into the language-debate, author Irene Asseiba
d’Almeida states:
The problem of language should not be underestimated because writing in
European languages means contributing to foreign literatures on the one hand, and
on the other, threatening the survival of African languages. It also means losing
sight of the functions of language which is culture-bound and moulds the human
mind, the human thought-patterns. (85)
Language is a central concern within postcolonial literature and theory for good reason. For
postcolonial writers, the choice of language is more than just a choice of practicality or
convenience; it is at once a political and ideological choice as well. Ngugi occupies a firm
position on one side of this debate. For him, a postcolonial literature written in the language
of the colonizer can be nothing but ineffective. While it may speak to an international
audience, it cannot fruitfully represent the lived experience of the people of the erstwhile
colonies. Thus, for Ngugi, the language of African literature can only be an African
language– a language which would speak to the working class, and not be the domain of only
the privileged and educated elite.
Works Cited
d’Almeida, Irene Assiba. “The Language of African Fiction: Reflections on Ngugi’s
Advocacy For an Afro-African Literature.” Presence Africaine, no. 120, 1981, pp. 82-
92. JSTOR.
Mbele, Joseph. “Language in African Litearture: An Aside to Ngugi.” Research in African
Literatures, vol. 23, no. 1, 1992, pp. 145-151. JSTOR.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o. “The Language of African Literature.” Decolonizing the Mind: The
Politics of Language in African Literature. London: James Currey Ltd., 1986.
Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Cantalupo, Charles. “African Literature… Says who?” Transition,
no. 120, 2016, pp. 4-21. JSTOR.
1.5 Suggestions for Further Reading
Lovesey, Oliver. The Postcolonial Intellectual: Ngugi wa Thiong’o in Context. Routledge,
2015.
Talib, Ismail S. The Language of Postcolonial Literatures: An Introduction. Routledge, 2002.

23