Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 11:37:55 -0500 (EST) From: Francis N Nesbitt <fnn-AT-oitunix.oit.umass.edu> Subject: Re: testing "Gikuyu's" water Arindum did you actually suggest that i go "home" because i criticized eurocentrism? are you also a pete wilson fan? On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Arindam Dutta wrote: > > > On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Francis N Nesbitt wrote: > > > > > > > cant reply fully to everyone but i remember a line where you said > > we need to get our distinctions right on the role of professors, > > ideologues and social workers > > and by the way > > my critique was aimed at obscure Lacanian jargon which i think is a > > waste of time and reveals a writer's politics (not Gikuyu/Bengali vs > > English) so your diatribe on Indian language politics was interesting > > but off base > > > > No, I think I was pretty much on target there. As far as I could make of > your various posts on this forum, the problem that you seemed to be > having was of Ngugi's choice of GIKUYU, as opposed to Spivak's use of > "Lacanian" jargon. By the way, I don't think Spivak ascribes particularly > to "Lacanian" language, the above adjective suspiciously seems to me > coming from somebody who has neither read Lacan or Spivak properly, not > that you need to, of course, that is completely your choice. If you're > using the term "Lacanian" to mean "difficult!", then please stick to the > colloquial, it is so much more useful to identify colloquial things. About > Spivak and Derrida's language as being "difficult", well, sure, there's not > much to be said, the only ironic and oxymoronic suggestion I can make is > to ask you to read all of their work. I haven't, I find it too difficult > to read, so I blunder, stumble, and struggle through it all, just as I > would have to do if I had to learn Gikuyu. > > To criticise James Joyce of not being Ernest Hemingway, to me, is no form > of criticism at all, it merely indicates one's own preference, or > predilection keeping in mind the vicissitudes of time and effort, > background, any combinations of the above. > > I clearly had meant my post, right at its introduction to be seen as > COMCPLEMENTARY to Timothy Burke's insightful limning of the > fractured option of the use of Gikuyu by Ngugi. Complementary, because, > even as the African (I use the name of a continent, because, in terms of > languages, India might be regarded the same) scenario needs to be seen in > its specificity, so does the Indian condition. Two distinctly situated > histories of intellectualism cannot, to use the term once again, so > crassly obfuscated by overarching judgements of > class-as-determined-by-language conscience. I think this is where > deconstruction takes off from its earlier Western antecedants, one has to > start to LISTEN CAREFULLY to the OTHER. The general shouting about Spivak > and Ngugi going on in this forum, who, as far as I am concerned, are more > sisterly spirits than opponents in analogous situated oppositions, I > suspect, has more of its foundations in the precise antagonistic > oppositions of various kinds of post-Enlightenment thinking within which > colonialism is situated. For me, then, it is not surprising that on > embarking on its own national adventure, countries such as India and > Kenya should start on little colonial adventures of their own. But this > is old hat. > > As of now, I haven't yet read Ngugi, but with Burke's precise limnings > of the problems of language use regarding empowerment in Africa, I could > well identify with. Call me a bitter soul, but I know better what to > believe when I read or hear talk of pristine native philosopher saints. > And by the way, it's not that I haven't read Ngugi (though now I > certainly hope to) because I cut my teeth in the First World Academy, it is > precisely the opposite, I went to a government sponsored college in India. > For all of our bleeding social consciences of the time, the only Third > World fiction we were able to subscribe to were those aberrant voices > whose sharp edges had well been blunted by the benevolent translations of > the First World counter-culture - Marquez, Neruda, Mahfouz and even with > recurrent bans, Rushdie. Mo brudda, if you went to a similar place for > your indoctrination, I suggest you quit bluffing. And if you didn't, then > I suggest you go there, (there, wherever it is that you feel the call for > home). > > When I said that one needs to get one's distinctions clear about college > professors and ideologues and literary figures and social workers, this > was not to say that any one of these were privileged (as you curiously > suggested, certainly THIS of all clearly indicates there are many > languages within the English language) over the other, it is exactly the > OPPOSITE. I would contend that these are all equally available roles with > which the individual can identify herself, and again, as in the Joyce > example, it's kind of silly to criticise one position with not being the > other. This is not the same as saying that college professors need not > have a social conscience, or need not be idealogues, or that social > workers should not go to college, or that literary figures need not have > an ideological bent of mind. (I think the above sentence was unnecessary, > but just in case you DO come back with any of the above.) > > Certainly, as for Spivak, as she has made clear time and again, her field > of practice is the CLASSROOM in the first world academy, and her ethical > standpoints are towards critical pedagogy ("What to teach?". Any number of > respondents on this forum have confused her with being an Indian, in > total violation of her remonstrations to being only identified as > such, and an Indianist, which is something that she has no intention of > being. While speaking at Princeton two years ago, when the standard "India" > question came up, she replied "Sure I'm an Indian, but my subject of study is > Europe". To be an Europeanist is not to preclude the question of her > ex-colonies, or questions of neo-imperialism, because, as most > post-colonial theorists, including Said and Spivak have pointed out, > one cannot have a full account of Europe without an account of its > colonial history. And vice-versa. This is old hat too. > > By making distinctions I would urge you to weigh each of the terms of > your own discourse, subject-positions (professors, theatre figures), > identities (Indian, Kenyan), specific histories of specific languages, > colloquialisms and intellectualisms, the field of theory and the field of > social work. To review the particular ways in which the above implicate > each other in relationships of power, is way much more difficult, because > it requires a coming to grips with that power itself, naked in your eyes, > as one is naked oneself. By the way, Nadeem, if you've read this far, I > love Faiz. > > Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, identity politics is a piece of > shit, > > Much Love > Arindam > > "Zulm ka zahar gholne vaale > Kaamra ho sakenge aaj nikal > Aur julvagahe visaal ki shame > bujha bhi chuke to kya > Chaand ko gul kare to hum jaane." > > Faiz Ahmed Faiz > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005