Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 14:57:45 -0500 (EST)
From: davis.875-AT-postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu (Denise Davis)
Subject: Re: Who is "us?" WAS: the enemy and they is us


I find this whole debate regarding the "definition" of postcolonial(ity)
interesting.  But, I am concerned about the desire to "define"
postcolonial(ity).  Why are we constantly attempting to categorize and limit
"areas" of study within the academy.  Is this desire to "categorize" an
effect of Western Science?  Why does postcolonial study have to 'belong' to
a certain group?  Why are we trying to carve it into little pieces, much
like western imperialists have attempted to carve up the world?  Why is
there such a frenzy to "mark off"/colonize this academic territory?  

I wonder how relevant Appiah's essay on the "post" in both postmodernism and
postcolonialism is to this topic.

 It appears that some of us are attempting to define "postcolonial" in a
teleological, progressive frame of linear time.  Is postcolonialism the
"successor regime" of colonialism or does the "post" indicate a
proliferation of colonialisms?  Is the creation of the hybrid and the
reimagined creole part of this proliferation of colonial identities?  Does
the colonization of North America have to mimic the colonization of Africa
to "count"?  Who gets to decide?  Does the "post" represent an
'after-effect' or a move away from a monolithic view of colonialism? Is it
both?    

Like many of these "new" "post" terms, postcolonialism(s) seems to occupy a
space of "deferred" definition, a space of continued resignification.  Is
this so terrible?  Does anybody really want to form a Socratic consensus of
a postcolonial definition ?  I suppose that the deferred defintion of
postcolonial(ism) can be dangerous, because the "enemy" could use this 'open
definition' to its advantage, but is that risk as dangerous as allowing it
to be colonized by a hegemonic group within the academy?       

       




>On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Keith Alan Sprouse wrote:
>
>> But back to the topic at hand: my point is simply this: if we are to find
>> any explanatory value in the body of knowledge known as postcolonial
>> studies, then that term cannot come to mean everything, for a term that
>> means anything and everything means nothing. We could certainly, if we
>> wanted, claim that every society that has ever suffered under a colonial
>> power and no longer does is "postcolonial" -- but that would get France back
>> in, as it was colonized by the Romans, not to mention all those other
>> societies that have known colonialism since the beginning of the world. But
>> is this helpful in any way? I think not. 
>> 
>> I'm curious how you would define the postcolonial? Would you accept a
>> definition that would include every society ever colonized? Or only certain
>> ones? Who would the colonizer have to be to get one included? And does it
>> matter if that society then colonizes? 
>> 
>It seems to me what's missing here is a recognition of the multiplicity of
>colonial experiences, and thus the broad spectrum of postcolonial
>societies that are produced by those very different experiences of
>colonial oppression, colonial settlement, etc.  Also, the temporal
>dimension is missing.  Why would it not be possible to talk about France
>at a particular moment being in a postcolonial situation?  Or England
>circa 400 or 1100?
>
>Douglas Ivison
>Departement d'etudes anglaises
>Universite de Montreal
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
*********************************************



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