Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 12:44:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Lisa McNee <lm23-AT-qsilver.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: poco loco, or enemies and/are us


Thanks Pradeep. However, I would like to turn your question around--of
course, everyone is hybridized/creolized/impure, and the notion of purity
is as myth that has been used to colonize and dominate. However, when does
it become a way of masking privilege? When do we lose sight of the
differences between the experiences of creolization under colonization
that the colonizer has gained, and those that are part of the experiences
of the colonized? Why might certain people find it useful to ignore or 
try to erase these differences?

This is not to re-introduce the "us/them" dichotomy that
I criticized in another posting, but to question the notion that we can
depoliticize hybridity. And, I would add, hybridity itself seems to imply
a binary system (thesis/antithesis=synthesis (hybrid), while creolization
does not.In other words, I am not so sure that we can separate the terms
and discuss them in an apolitical manner. It would be helpful to me if you
could give me a more direct approach, or an example, of how we can
usefully delink ideology and postcolonial studies. Personally, I agree
with an earlier posting that we cannot forget Foucault...

Best, Lisa

On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Pradeep Dhillon wrote:

> Quick thought on "hybridity" (I have not yet read the texts mentioned):
> "Hybridity" is a naturalizing term.  If we accept its usage in descriptions
> of the postcolonial condition-- I for one would like to resist it-- then we
> do need to address the wider question being discussed here:  Who is not
> naturalized?  Privilege masks the mestizo nature of all.  In other words,
> who is "pure"?
> 
> To use the terms politically, it seems to me, is a separate issue and one
> we can make a clear decision on.  Even if we are against the division
> between "is" and "ought", it seems to me "postcoloniality" might requre a
> generally alert attitude with regards the dangers of running one into the
> other.  Not to do so is to reproduce the very intellectual practices we
> wish to question.  "Hybridity" is a term that seems to require such a
> consideration.
> 
> Best,
> Pradeep.
> 
> 
> 
> >At 09:32 PM 4/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >>eg. literary studies can look at anything by considering it as text
> >>    geography can look at anything by considering it spatially
> >>    history can look at anything by considering it temporally
> >>    feminism can look at anything by considering it as gender
> >>    "postcolonialism" can look at anything by considering it in terms of
> >>colonization.
> >
> >I wonder about the sophistication and the applicability of this formuation.
> >Take the feminist/feminism line, since Terry seems quite fond of using
> >feminist studies as an example. I don't know that what femist studies
> >represents can be very well captured by "looking at anything by considering
> >it as gender." I have yet to meet a feminist studies scholar that thinks
> >that EVERYTHING is gender. Many things are not gender and the scholars I've
> >known who would characterize their area of research as feminist studies
> >haven't had a problem recognizing this.
> >
> >>Having said all that, I think the political commitment of the field is not
> >>inherent to the approach but reflects the people who decide to pursue it,
> >>for obvious historical reasons. The same is true of feminism, of gay
> >>studies, and the other fields which began as the study of the relationship
> >>between "minority" cultures and established hegemony.
> >
> >I mostly agree with this, but would also argue that the political commitment
> >is expressed in the very term post_colonial_, which doesn't work that well
> >historically (lots of people have argued this fairly well, but briefly put,
> >neo-colonialism still rules in many places), and covers far to many
> >societies (as it is practiced) to attend to much cultural specificity.
> >Perhaps the fact that I'm a Caribbeanist in an interdisciplinary program who
> >never sees poco that does much of anything with one of the central
> >historical, social, and cultural phenomenon of the Caribbean, the Plantation
> >complex and slavery, makes me more keenly aware of the limits of the
> >discipline.
> >
> >But I've go to run and do some teaching, so I'll have to continue later.
> >
> >Keith
> >
> >____________________________________________________
> >
> >Keith Alan Sprouse		e-mail:  kas3f-AT-virginia.edu
> >New World Studies		office: 804.924.4626
> >Department of French	fax:  804.924.7157
> >University of Virginia		home:  804.243.4306
> >Charlottesville, VA 22903	http://www.people.virginia.edu/~kas3f
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
> Pradeep A. Dhillon (Assistant Professor)
> Dept. of Education Policy Studies, (Philosophy Division)
> Room 377, 1610 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61821
> 217-356-0363
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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