Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:36:08 +22304808 (WAST)
Subject: Re: Response to Styles post Andrew's "Faulkian" quote



To Tina: I remember an earlier post of yours some time ago in which you
brought out your flag of authenticity: I was born here, I speak this
language, and I now live in a different nation-state.  This gives me the
privilege (the right?) to have "real" knowledge [in this case on cricket
in Colombo] of a place in which I was born but no longer reside. Full
stop. These qualifications should never be taken unquestionably as
"assurance"  of "truth."

My reductive rendition of your "authenticity" as a "post-colonial" subject
is, apart from being grossly simplistic/presumptuous, also representative
of the economic privilege experienced by some of particular trans-national
capital flows made possible by colonial histories; by institutions which
"unify" empires. Appeal to authenticity is often the strategy deployed -
and one which is frequently seen at "big" conferences on postcolonialism where
junket tourists converge only to find they need a way to differeniate
themselves, their politcs, their knowledge - to silence/oppress the
problematising of issues. Despite its affectiveness at times, it is a
particularly poor strategy, not only for its epistemic shonkiness, as it
often betrays the benefits that one has gained from the apparatuses of
colonialism/capitalism. 

On a different issue: your denigratation of the "Women's Studies mob at
ANU" for not having read "Pol Sci" or "po-co" is unpalatable on a number
of counts. Firstly, in assumes that the uni dept. in question, or any
other entity for that matter, is a unified, coherent thing whose
participants toe a rigid party line.  Furthermore, such a formulation of
pidgeon-holing assumes that each individual associated in whatever way
with the Women's Studies dept. at ANU only does limited/identifiable/known
things. Following this, a hierarchy of legitimate knowledges is set up: a
discursive strategy deployed often in colonialism(s), though not exclusive to
it of course, to silence/marginalise contesting voices.  Your polemic with
Womens Studies at ANU seems to duplicate the very "local" and
"non-productive" debate you object this list to being host to.

In short, Tina, I have found it very disturbing hearing your string of
right-wing sentiments, particularly ( and confusingly) as you seem to take
pride in your familiarity with "po-co" theory/lit which more often than
not is of left-wing persuasion.  Furthermore, it puzzles me to hear your
duplication of right-wing,Liberal Party rhetoric (as promulgated in Aust.
media) at a time in Australia's history when participants in Aust
uni-industries are faced with funding cuts based on ideological
(ir)rationales. Perhaps you are one of the "majority" [youth?] who voted
right in the last election, and will "swing" further right as youth slides
to the middle years, if "historical" voting trends are a benchmark? 

To Andrew: at first I had your post confused as one in response to Cath
Styles'. When you spoke of "Ms Faulk's" post on tea and cake, the need for
"more productive discussion", PhD students in Australia lacking any sense
of humour, any tolerance, and what the "majority" of Australian's do not
"share" with Faulk's "interests", I became puzzled over the doubleness I
was hearing.  

To Tina and Andrew both, then,: what constitutes "productive discussion,"
what rules on discourse might this list have to subscribe to?; how is it
possible to know what (silent) majorities might be thinking? [please Tina,
do not repeat the Liberal/media fallacy that they have a "mandate to rule"
as a result of a "majority" vote - in the house of reps., not the senate,
I might add]; how is possible to speak for the "lack of humour" in groups
that you both homogenise? It would do well for this line of discussion to
remember Jon Stratton's point on the local as always already global,
vice-versa.  How else would it be possible for list subscribers outside
the circumscribed geography of North America to (silently) tolerate the at
times dominant postings by list-participants in the US who debate their
own "local" issues? 

Ned Rossiter








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