the postcolonial question
"Today, 'postcolonial studies' in the Anglo-US academy often suggests simply the opening up of a new archive or a bringing together, in different ways, of various interpretative or reading techniques developed by poststructuralist theorists. There is little evidence that such intellectual work derives any of its critical functions and polemical urgencies from the present-day cultural and intellectual life of the “postcolonial” nation or nations whose historical legacy is under study" (Kaul 75).
In other words, as the colonizer once claimed to be expert in deciding what was important to their colonized subjects, postcolonial theorists are now determining what is important to the field of postcolonial studies, without really taking into account the values of the nation being discussed.
In fact, there is a tendency to simply lump all postcolonial nations together and to view their very different, very specific issues as similar. As Mukherjee writes, "My encounter with such enigmas in the text made me aware very early on in my study of literature how important culturally coded meanings are. This awareness has made me wary of theories that speak of “universality” and “autonomy” of literature. For, as several Third World writers and critics have suggested, “universality” in such theoretical exercises has really come down to a demand that the literary work not contain any references to the local or regional, since the New York- or London- based critic cannot be bothered to waste time acquainting him/herself with Yoruba myths or Indian scriptures" (192).
This is certainly an issue that needs some attention. In studying postcoloniality, it is significant to examine the difference in perspective between the colonizer and the colonized. Yet to attach little or no importance to the perspective of the postcolonial subjects this new field is studying is to create that difference again. How can one do justice to any specific region if one simply groups several different regions together, with their widely differing values, cultures, histories becoming overshadowed by their one true similarity: their status as “postcolonial”? It is as though
"postcolonial theory …overlooks the diversities within any society on the one hand, and on the other, the diversities across postcolonial societies when it tries to speak of them all in terms of the colonizer/colonized binaries" (Mukherjee 193).
This speaks to all of the issues embedded within what is, in my opinion, the postcolonial question. when does literature stop being seen as postcolonial and begin to be seen as simply kenyan or indian or etc etc? when can the literature of a certain country no longer be seen in the light of its colonial history, and stand on its own as national, informed from within by its own cultural context? when we look at the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, and the prejudices therein, can we learn something about the construction of the other within a certain country?
"Today, 'postcolonial studies' in the Anglo-US academy often suggests simply the opening up of a new archive or a bringing together, in different ways, of various interpretative or reading techniques developed by poststructuralist theorists. There is little evidence that such intellectual work derives any of its critical functions and polemical urgencies from the present-day cultural and intellectual life of the “postcolonial” nation or nations whose historical legacy is under study" (Kaul 75).
In other words, as the colonizer once claimed to be expert in deciding what was important to their colonized subjects, postcolonial theorists are now determining what is important to the field of postcolonial studies, without really taking into account the values of the nation being discussed.
In fact, there is a tendency to simply lump all postcolonial nations together and to view their very different, very specific issues as similar. As Mukherjee writes, "My encounter with such enigmas in the text made me aware very early on in my study of literature how important culturally coded meanings are. This awareness has made me wary of theories that speak of “universality” and “autonomy” of literature. For, as several Third World writers and critics have suggested, “universality” in such theoretical exercises has really come down to a demand that the literary work not contain any references to the local or regional, since the New York- or London- based critic cannot be bothered to waste time acquainting him/herself with Yoruba myths or Indian scriptures" (192).
This is certainly an issue that needs some attention. In studying postcoloniality, it is significant to examine the difference in perspective between the colonizer and the colonized. Yet to attach little or no importance to the perspective of the postcolonial subjects this new field is studying is to create that difference again. How can one do justice to any specific region if one simply groups several different regions together, with their widely differing values, cultures, histories becoming overshadowed by their one true similarity: their status as “postcolonial”? It is as though
"postcolonial theory …overlooks the diversities within any society on the one hand, and on the other, the diversities across postcolonial societies when it tries to speak of them all in terms of the colonizer/colonized binaries" (Mukherjee 193).
This speaks to all of the issues embedded within what is, in my opinion, the postcolonial question. when does literature stop being seen as postcolonial and begin to be seen as simply kenyan or indian or etc etc? when can the literature of a certain country no longer be seen in the light of its colonial history, and stand on its own as national, informed from within by its own cultural context? when we look at the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, and the prejudices therein, can we learn something about the construction of the other within a certain country?
...Natural is the static
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home