Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 20:05:27 -0700
From: "L. A. Phillips" <la.phillips-AT-cableinet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Post-col. web site


I too found Paul's statement on 'postcolonialism' an interesting read.
Here's my own subjective response of being taught and researching under
that banner.
   My own interests would generally categorised as postcolonial by
funding and academic bodies, although this was certainly no conscious
choice on my part. I am interested in literature reflective of, or in
consious relationship to, British colonialism (mainly in the 19thC).
Yes, I do have reference to postcolonial theorists like Bhabha, Spivak
and Said, but am also extremely wary and critical of them. This is no
different from my relationship to poststructuralism or Marxism, although
I would most readily associate myself with the latter. I could go on,
extending the qualifications which would differentiate me from the
postcolonial field. I suspect most scholars simarly labelled or
consciously following such an affiliation could do the same.
   My point is that it is a convenient academic catch all that has more
to do with departmentalisation and research funding in the (Western)
academy than it does in a fully realisable object of study: thence the
problem of the diverse views of the scholars and writers it
appropriates. The fragility of the postcolonial cement was evident from
numerous graduate seminars which I have attended that brought together
in a British university an extremely mixed international group which
represented descendants of colonisers; of European nationlities that
have never been colonising countries in the modern sense; immigrants
from former colonies; and those from the 'third world' (I use that term
for want of another -- 'developing world' is as objectionable, I think).
Whilst we were all studying 'postcolonial' theory and authors, the range
of response was so diverse (and exciting for that reason) it pretty much
made a nonsense of the pedagogical unity which was neccessary to produce
gradeable work within academic parameters. Conscious of that, the
written work that came out of the course was certainly less adventurous
(and heated) than our debates. In that resepct I think Paul well advised
in his caution in actually teaching a postcolonial course. 
   As Paul demonstrates, 'postcolonialism' as a discourse and object of
study has a disconcerting habit of almost infinte fragmentation on close
scrutiny, which was only hastened by the varied backgrounds and present
agandas of those participating in these seminars. It is ridiculous to
presume that a white, British student would respond to colonialism in
the same way as a Britain of Indian or Pakinstani descent, a Swede or
someone from Brazil (these and others were represented in those
seminars). We manifestly did not share the same history of colonialism,
nor would our experience of its contemporary legacy mean the same to
each. Yet that is what postcolonialism in the Western academy seems to
demand: the existence of a universalised comprehension of colonialism's
meaning. For that to exist, we would all have to going to go back to
some myth of pure academic detachment and objectivity. Although that is
just what still lies at the heart of many academic disciplines.
   However, I did learn from the experience one very important lesson.
Whilst 'postcolonialism' is only a masquerade for a unified field, it
did bring together such a diverse group to a fascinating exchange of
views, even if it was only to glimpse behind the curtain of another(s)
history and perception. Yet surely what's needed is a way to recognise
within the academy that otherness. There we have it: the Western academy
still can't admit its Others except on its own terms. But perhaps for
its ability to bring such diversity together, it's worth persisting
with. 

Lawrence Phillips
University of Sussex



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