Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:44:24 +0900
From: "Guy Yasko"  <guyy-AT-aqu.bekkoame.or.jp>
Subject: Re: the spivak/ahmad/dirlik debate


In message <199502282247.OAA16308-AT-fraser.sfu.ca>  writes:
>       ii  > 
> > Right on, Sangeeta--Ahmad's own agenda and stakes need acknowledging. 
> > What bothers me so much about the whole trashing of po-co theory 
> > because it is seen to emerge from first world privileged spaces is not
> > unfair so much as it erases the particularity of its own engendering. 
> > Not only this: much criticism of Spivak, Bhabha, et al. simply hasn't 
> > done the work of reading these theorists. I'm also reminded of what 
> > Derrida says in response to Graff's questions about the Derrida/Searle
> > debate: "The violence, political or otherwise, at work in academic 
> > discussions or in intellectual discussions generally, must be 
> > acknowledged." I see a violence in what Ahmad is doing to Said, for 
> > instance, and there also seems a similar unacknowledged violence reproduced 
> > 
> > in our trashing of a theorist on the basis of the $ s/he makes and the 
> > country in which s/he lives. So, I want to ask, what desires and 
> > anxieties propel criticisms of Spivak and Bhabha--what are the stakes 
> > for "us" in this debate? 
> > Alpana
> >  
> I fully agree with this warning.  Theoretical arguments should never
> give way to ad hominem attacks.  Otherwise, this net should be shut
> up, because everyone here is more privileged than those without access
> to the net and high education, whether in the first world or in the
> third world.  Identity attacks remind me of the Chinese cultural
> revolution, when all the profs and college students were criticized
> and punished for their privileges.  That's the lesson of Marxism in
> practice that needs to be theorized.

I think the history of Marxism does indeed relate to the issues in discussion.  
In particular, both Marxism and Bhaba's supporters reserve a special place for 
theory.  Just look at that final sentence: "...Marxism in practice needs to be 
theorized."  And then what?  As if "theorizing" the world will take care of its 
problems.  In fact, the demands of "theorizing" our world exceeds our capacities
for theorizing.  As the history of Marxism has often demonstrated, the priority 
of theory often leads to  paralysis.  One of the great ironies of the history of
Marxism is that despite frequent quotations of Marx's 10th thesis on Feuerbach, 
Marxist practice has played second fiddle to theory.  Marxist parties had 
theoretical constructions of the relation of the economy to ideology and 
revolution.  Believing certain theories, some Communist parties wait for the 
signals that their theory promises them, all the while obstructing and 
denigrating the revolutionary practice beneath their noses because "theory tells
us the time has yet to come."  In our case, because we cannot "theorize" the 
relation between academic practice and academic theory that Ahmad and Dirlik 
question, we give up on the problem.  We simply put it out of bounds because all
of us have ulterior motives and all of us enjoy certain priveleges.  Meanwhile 
back at the academy,�-AT-it's business as usual.  

But the problem of theory goes even deeper.  The priority of theory in Marxism 
transformed Marxism into technique.  Having the found the correct theory, the 
question became one of its application.  Likewise, the priority of philosophy in
the post-colonialism of some contributors develops into a similar technique.  
The stakes here are in fact quite high.  If that is the fate of post-colonialism
as a whole ( and I'm not claiming that it is, obviously people like Spivak and 
the the contributors to the discussion on African literature care a great deal 
about  practice), there would be little reason to choose post-colonialism over 
say, modernization theory.  In either case, as technique, the application of 
theory ends up in the hands of those with the "proper" training and credentials,
if not from the outset, then later.  Not very empowering, not very democratic.

It seems to me that Derrida is being cited in an authoritarian manner to silence
criticism of an essentially unDerridean, liberal argument.  Philosophers, or if 
you prefer, theorists, inevitably leave a great deal out of their discussions.  
Paychecks, grocery shopping, faculty meetings, diaper changing, grading, in 
other words, the vast majority of a thinker's life never makes it into the 
theory.   Critics of post-colonialism have tried to bring some of the relevant 
omissions back into the discussion.  Naturally the same questions of the 
relation of theory to practice apply to Marx, Ahmad, Dirlik, me, or anyone else.
But unless one believes that subjects remain unchanged by their actions, one 
must confront the issue.  Make no mistake, the academy has a profound effect on 
all who pass through it.  No doubt these effects differ from institution to 
institution and person to person, but this is no reason to retreat to a 
speculative attitude which demands total theorization before action.

Discussing Bhabha is fine, so is discussing the problems with Bhabha.  In either
case, we should keep a practical perspective.  Why and where is Bhabha useful or
not useful?  How can we improve on Bhabha?  Since theory always proves 
inadequate to our tasks, ignoring questions of practice amounts to defeat.





     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------