Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:46:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why Throw Americans Out of Middle East... by Taliban



Richard,

Thanks for your thoughts on the Taliban post. While I don't think you do
this, I realise from reading your message that my reposting of the Taliban
article may be construed to suggest that I agree (whole-heartedly or
half-heartedly) with Taliban's reading of the situation. I don't, for the
very reasons that you hint at. In fact, I have been trying to incorporate
this notion of "third space" myself into an attempt to understand the
context and ambiguities of what we call "resistance" more clearly or
faithfully. I think something like a "third space sensibility" could help
point the way to a more progressive conceptualisation and politics in
relation to the issues of domination, oppression, resistance, and
"counter-domination"... but neither Taliban or the USA is heavily into a
progressive politics, as I see it.

What I find particularly interesting about the Taliban post is
twofold: (a) it necessitates working through the emotions of
reading a
piece whose anger I share, but which reworks that anger into a form and in
a direction, and with a purpose that I mostly deplore, and (b) my sense
that if the article appeared in a Rushdie novel it would be worked through
in full by students of the postcolonial, but because it was written
(presumably) by the "non-fiction" (I'm opening myself up here) Taliban it
will get little such attention.

David. 



On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Richard Wah wrote:

> At the risk of being branded pro-American and pro-Jew and pro-Christian, I
> want to make a few comments to the post by Taliban. Please pardon my lack
> of appropriate jargon.
> 
> I agree that "the postcolonial is about attending to the social and political
> >processes that struggle against and work to unsettle the architecture of
> >domination established through imperialism"
> 
> But I do not agree with and do not feel there is any benefit to be gained
> by continuing with the various dichotomies by Nationalities, colour, race
> etc .... for want of better  terminology ... "deterministically essential"
> by these markers. For to do so would lead to the conclusion that one is
> conquered and the opressed becomes the oppressor and the dichotomy starts
> all over again.
> 
> I am of the view that the strategy being pursued will only lead to
> continuation of the binary oppositions. WIthin my own work I am
> experimenting with the notions of Lefreve's (Soja) thirdspaces and Wilden's
> "both and." I posit these two strategies not as compromises of the various
> positions of the contestation but as alternate perceptions or conceptions
> (not quite sure) criticing to underlying assumptions of the constitutions
> of the various groups (e.g. are all Christians, Jews, American such
> horrible people and all Muslims good?), contexts, concepts, value systems
> and ways of doing. I realise in my work that a lot of this is abstract and
> appear to be non-pragmatic but I feel out of theoretical framings line this
> could come so more lasting solutions to the contestations and conflicts
> rather than the strategy that has been used up to now wher the dominant is
> replaced by the dominator etct etc.
> 
> I realise that this maybe detract from the realities ... comments.
> 
> Richard



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