HANDOUT ON POSTCOLONIAL STUDIES
What's here
Postcolonial studies is a fairly recent phenomenon, one that emerged in the 1980s and '90s. The word "postcolonial" points to the fact that, in the last half of the twentieth century, the great European colonial empires have collapsed: India achieved its independence in 1947, Egypt in 1954, the Congo in 1960, Uganda in 1962, Kenya in 1965, and so on.
Postcolonial studies is characterized by an incredible variety--it
combines a number of theoretical approaches and concerns. Yet scholars working
in the field can be said to have at least a few common interests:
In dealing with questions of identity, as you'll see when reading Spivak, scholars in this field are often influenced by Derrida. What exactly do those scholars take from him? Here's a partial list:
More information about Spivak and the Subaltern Studies Group
NOTE: Much of this information comes from Robert Young's White Mythologies (Routledge, 1990), a book recommended to me by Jyotsana Uppal. Young traces "the history of history," showing how recent writers like Spivak and Edward Said have challenged the ethnocentrism of most accounts of "World History."
Having paid my respects to Young, I'll begin by noting that the term "subaltern" is taken from an essay by Antonio Gramsci (1881-1937), an Italian writer who viewed political and cultural issues from a Marxist perspective. The term refers to any person or group of inferior rank and station, and thus it can be employed in discussions of race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and religion.
The Subaltern Studies Group gets started in the 1980s, and its goal is to rethink and rewrite the history of India. Traditional histories, as Spivak explains in her opening paragraphs, are often influenced by Marxism. Thus, they tend to begin with India in a kind of semi-feudal state, then go on to tell how it was colonized by the British, how it was politicized, and how it eventually earned its independence. The heroes of these narratives are the Indian elites: the elites, usually presented as the first Indians to gain any sort of political consciousness, are said to provide the inspiration, the ideas and the values, for resistance and rebellion against the British.
The SSG rejects those narratives. It looks past the elites to the non-elites, the subalterns, writing them into history, and presenting them as the agents of political and social change. And that's not all. In writing the histories of Indian "insurgencies," and in detailing episides of resistance and rebellion, scholars associated with the SSG are concerned not only with political acts (such as rallies, demonstrations, and uprisings), but also with political rhetorics and discourses. They want to know how support for an insurgency was mobilized. Through what kinds of writing, and what kinds of images or metaphors, they might ask, did insurgents claim the authority to do and say what they were doing and saying?
All of this, as you'll see, is quite all right with Spivak. She's a Derridean, after all, so she likes the idea of shifting from the center (the elites) to the margins (the subalterns), and from action to discourse. She also admires and applauds the SSG's emphasis on locality and historical particularity, noting that instead of spinning grand narratives about "India" or "insurgency," the SSG tends to construct more limited and specific accounts of particular events and incidents. Thus, the SSG reminds us that insurgency played itself out in different ways in different places and at different times.
In exploring the reasons why insurgencies fail, as Spivak notes, scholars associated with the SSG sometimes--not always, but sometimes--speak about a "failure of consciousness" on the part of the subalterns themselves. Here, as in the traditional narratives rejected by the SSG, the influence of Marxism is obvious: the subalterns failed, just as workers in the nineteenth century always failed, because they hadn't yet realized that they were not "subjects," but "Indians," "workers" and "men," entitled to certain political and economic rights. Thus, this line of argument tends to assume that there is an "Indian" or "proletarian" or "masculine" identity out there, waiting to be discovered, realized, and brought to consciousness.
Now, for a deconstructor like Spivak, that makes no sense at all. And so, at this point, she departs from the SSG, asking how any identity can exist prior to its enactment in discourse. Indeed, she rejects the SSG's tendency to speak of a "subaltern consciousness" or a "subaltern identity," insisting that such terms inevitably "objectify" the subalterns. Her concerns are expressed succinctly on page five, for example, where she questions the desire to find the consciousness of the subaltern in "a postive and pure state."
There's more to it than that, of course--and to see what, you'll need to read carefully. Just remember, as you read, that Spivak is both excited and distressed by what she sees in the work of the SSG. What that shows, I think, is that she is as tough on her friends as she is on her opponents and enemies. In that way, she certainly sets a good example for the rest of us.
1. Near the beginning of her essay, Spivak speaks of "humanism" and "positivism," neither of which she seems to like very much (10). What does she mean by these terms, and why does she dislike the things they stand for?
2. Spivak asserts that "it is the subaltern who provides the model for a general theory of consciousness" (11). What does she mean by that? What kind of "model" is she thinking of here, and why can it be used as the basis for a "general theory"?
3. What does Spivak mean when she speaks of "affirmative deconstruction" (16)? Does she think it's a good thing, or not?
4. At the end of the essay, Spivak speaks about women and images of women. What kinds of historical research, what kinds of inquiry into what kinds of topics, is she hoping to inspire?
5. Clifford, whose father was a distinguished literary critic and biographer, begins by quoting and discussing a passage from poet James Fenton. Why? How does he use this passage to introduce the themes and questions that will occupy the rest of the essay?
6. Can you explain the function and logic of Clifford's "semiotic square" (see 57)? Does the square help you to see what Clifford is driving at?
7. Clifford thinks that we need to develop "different chronotropes for art and culture collecting" (71)? Why? What does he mean by "chronotrope"? (HINT: Check the glossary at the back of your Bakhtin Reader.) And finally, what alternative chronotropes for collecting does he begin to sketch in his closing pages?
8. Appiah makes a point of saying that he does not share "the widespread negative evaluation of commodification" (338, n. 2). Why doesn't he share the usual negative attitude; and if he isn't negative, what is he? Does he view commodification as a good thing? Is he for it? What's up with this?
9. Why does Appiah think that the incorporation of African artworks into Western museums and galleries "has almost nothing . . . to do with postmodernism" (346)?
10. What, for Appiah, is the difference between the first generation of modern African novels, which includes Things Fall Apart, and the second? What does Appiah have in mind when he says that second-generation novels are "postnativist" (351)?
11. Why do you suppose Appiah concludes by returning to the man on the bicycle? What is the point of his return--what is it supposed to signify for us?