Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:24:44 +1200
From: danny-AT-gdv.org.nz (db)
Subject: obfuscatory postures



>Surely, this is a context in which it should be possible to get
>beyond mere self-defensive sycophancy?   Surely, this is a context in
>which we can safely assume that there is no need to display constant
>deference toward those "big names"--those "academic stars"--who
>currently dominate the institutional sphere of postcolonial studies?
>Surely, this is a context in which we can openly acknowledge that, in
>this field, as in any field, there is a certain amount of verbal
>obfuscation and posturing?  Surely?

surely, Andrew. and i don't think many of those critiquing the statements
by Mr Samuel (or mr njubi) would disagree with you. it's more that the
statements are even more hilariously full of posturing than most of the
usual discussions on the list. it's like njubi and Samuel are in security
compounds with electric fences and a big sign saying 'Radical Headquarters
- COLLABORATORS WILL BE SHOT' as they draw up their battle plans for total
revolution. they repeat their 'Emergency Procedure in case of Theoretical
Contamination' over and over, to guard against breaches of integrity
(Julian's hostility toward gendered analysis is hardly surprising, for
women always seem to 'confuse the issues' and 'mess everything up' - things
were so much simpler in Marx's day...). it pains them to defile themselves
by entering such pollution as exists on the list, but for the sake of the
radical cause sometimes they just have to pick up the loudhailer and remind
people that Radical H.Q. hasn't gone away - 'Just remember, all you guys in
the universities are not radical - you hear me?' no doubt they will be
rewarded for their abstention when feminism goes the way of graphology and
we can get back to being Free Men again, unshackled from political
correctness, academic gobbledygook and all that crap.

to me, the funniest thing about Samuel and njubi is how much more seriously
they take Spivak and the others they declaim than everyone else does. most
people i know don't read theory to judge the author's complicity with
domination (where to judge from, anyway?), to find a blueprint for life or
discover a new idol; they read to find ideas which can make their
resistance to colonialism (whatever form that takes, in whatever situation
they're in) more effective (i guess this might not be the case for some
university students, but...). assessing the political location of those
writing/discussing postcolonial theory is an important factor in working
out how to read them effectively. but it would be cool if this could be
done with a recognition that the moral high-ground is easy to defend but a
tough place to do any communication with the world outside...

anyhow
x.
danny




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