Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 21:25:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: louisgodena-AT-ids.net (Louis R Godena)
Subject: The 'Post-Colonial' Debate: Marx & Anti-Marx  



The "theory" of post-colonial studies had been the subject of fierce debate
even before the publication of Edward Said's *Culture and Imperialism* (New
York, 1993: Alfred A. Knopf),  unquestionably the popular apotheosis of this
genre.    While critics from outside Marxism have been the most vociferous
(cf., Ernest Gellner's scathing critique of Said,  "The Mightier pen?" ,
*Times Literary Supplement*,  February 19,  1993,  and lengthy exchanges
between the two in subsequent issues),   various orthodoxies within Marxism
have expressed skepticism (see,  for example,  Dipesh Chakrabarty,
"Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History:  Who Speaks for 'Indian
Pasts'?"  *Representations* 32 [Winter],  1992).      In fact,  the debate
around the question of "post-colonialism" has all but eclipsed more
traditional controversies centering around capitalism and the role of the
state and the ontological nature of socialist societies.     Paradoxically,
a discipline that originally evoked the textuality of Marxism has now grown
quite independently of it,  perhaps as a consequence of the view of some
that Marxism itself is a peculiarly "Western" phenomenon. 

The post-colonial construct can be roughly argued as followed:

European and American imperialism have appeared under various guises in
different times and in different places,  both through conscious planning
and,  fortuitously,  through contingent occurrences.    

As a result of this complex (and often haphazard) development something
occurred for which the *theory* of imperial expansion had not bargained:
the immensely prestigious and powerful imperial culture found itself
appropriated in projects of *counter*colonial resistance which drew upon
upon the myriad of indigenous local and hybrid *processes* of
self-determination to defy,  erode and sometimes supplant the prodigious
power of imperial cultural knowledge.   

Post-colonial literatures emerged as a result of this interaction between
imperial culture and a complex of indigenous cultural practices.     And
>from post-colonial literatures--and the consequent reflection by colonized
people on this powerful,  vibrant and seemingly contradictory mixture of
imperial language and local experience,  post-colonial theory came into being.

The theory of post-colonial studies recognizes that all post-colonial
societies are still subject in one way or another to overt or subtle forms
of neo-colonial domination,  and "independence" has not obviated this issue.
The development of new elites within independent societies,  often
buttressed by neo-colonial institutions;  the development of internal
divisions based on racial,  linguistic or religious discriminations;  the
continuing racism directed against indigenous peoples in settler/invader
societies--all these testify to the fact that post-colonialism is a
continuing process of resistance and reconstruction.

Post-colonial theory involves discussion about *experience* of various
kinds.    Migration,   slavery,  suppression,  resistance,   representation,
difference,  race,  gender,  place,  all are juxtaposed as responses to the
influential master discourses of imperial Europe such as philosophy,
history,  and linguistics,  and the fundamental experiences of speaking and
writing by which all these come into being.    

In short,  post-colonial studies are based in the "historical fact" of
European colonialism,   and the diverse material effects to which this
phenomenon gave rise.

The Marxian critique of post-colonial theory can be distilled into the
following brief criticisms:

1) Discourse on gender,  nationality,  race, and sexuality further
complicate forms of complicity and resistance.   Such variables,  unlike
class,  comprise a site of contesting and conflicting claims,  an array of
identifications and subjectivities which refuse to cohere neatly into
oppositional or complicit post-colonialism.     (Gillian Whitlock,  "A
Critique of Post-Colonial Theory;  A Vestigial Analysis of Class,"  in
*Perspectives*,  3 [1991])

2) Post-colonial theory may itself mask and even perpetuate unequal and
economic and cultural relations.    This occurs when the bulk of the
literary theory emerges out of the metropolitan centers,  "adding value" to
the literary "raw material" imported from the post-colonial societies.
Such a situation merely reproduces the inequalities of imperial power
relations (W.J.T. Mitchell,  "Postcolonial Culture,  Postimperial
Criticism,"  *Transition*, 56 [1992])   

3) Western imperialism is depicted as a platonic,  isolated event in its own
right,  rather than as primarily an aspect of the transformation of the
world by a new technology,  economy and science,  impelled by the class
relations of imperialism.     Post-colonial theory,  in this context,
assigns to imperialism a stability and permanance which masks a temporary
and unstable balance of power  (Chidi Amuta,  *The Theory of African
Literature* [London,  1989: Zed Books])

4) Deeply internalized,  socially enforced distinctions between categories
of people constituted a general characteristic of complex societies.    They
were only loosened and partly eroded by that modern turbulence which brought
in its wake,   but is not exhausted by,   imperialism.    Post-colonial
theory postulates that the cruelties and injustices which occur under
imperialism are somehow worse or more reprehensible than those which
customarily take place *within* either traditional or modernized societies.
It is an idealized form of social theory which is inimical to Marxism.
(Kenneth Neil Cameron,  *Science,  Humanity,  and Society* [Toronto,  1990:
Black Rose Books]

It is clear that post-colonial theory represents both an important
complement to the literature of the Left,  as well as a troubling challenge
to some of the more orthodox aspects of modern Marxism.    I would like to
see this issue pursued further.

Louis Godena


Ashcroft,  Griffiths and Tiffin,   *The Post-Colonial Studies Reader*
(London and New York,  1995: Routledge)

Nelson and Grossberg (eds),  *Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture*
(London,  1989:  Macmillan)