Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:07:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Lisa McNee <lm23-AT-qsilver.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: Bhabha's 


April--After a bit of thought, I find that I must disagree with your
comment. Although it is true that we might want to compare Bhabha to
non-western thinkers, and could probably do so fruitfully, it is also
important to consider Bhabha's place in western culture--at least, if you
believe such an animal exists. Bhabha plays an important role in the
mainstream of western thought. He writes in English, a western language,
and his main references are to western writers and thinkers. He teaches in
the western academy, as he is at the University of Chicago. Very clearly,
he wants to make an impact on the western academy and on western thought
generally. I believe he has succeeded in doing so. This means that it is
appropriate to consider his impact on the West in light of the influence
that other thinkers have had. It seems as appropriate to study the
reception of Bhabha's thought in the West as it would be to look at the
influence of, say, Rabindranath Tagore on western thinkers and writers.
Such a history requires comparison to other significant thinkers in the
same tradition.

This would not be the same thing as a history of these writers' reception
in their own region of the world, but it is a worthwhile project.
Moreover, since postcolonial writers are attempting to influence the West
and its cultural history, why shouldn't we attempt to relate postcolonial
thinking to the history of thought in the West? In addition,
postcolonial writers like Bhabha are living in exile--a circumstance
that does affect their writing--see Spivak's work on the issue of
postcolonial exiles for more. Furthermore, I think that we will always run
into the problem that V.Y. Mudimbe addresses in THE INVENTION OF
AFRICA--we are always dealing with constructs that we take to be real when
we talk about "the West and the Rest."

I think I need to address another, related issue. I believe that Henry
Louis Gates has argued that we cannot escape the need for a canon of some
sort in part because we must always choose the works we find worth our
time, as our time is limited. This means that postcoloniality is about
changing the canon, rather than doing away with value judgments entirely
(accepting the contingency of value does not mean disregarding the need to
evaluate). The terms of our evaluation change, obviously. Does  the change
mean that I should devalue writers like Kant because they belong to a
canon that we are trying to change? I don't think so, and I believe that
it is a disservice to postcolonial writers to assume that the only writers
we can compare them to are from their home regions. The very nature of
postcoloniality seems to preclude such parochialism. Although my response
is becoming lengthier than I had expected, I want to add that it seems
racist to me to assume that comparing postcolonial writers to canonized
white men automatically means pointing out the postcolonial writers'
inadequacies! Why can't it mean pointing out the gaps or inadequacies in
the canonized writers' work, too?


On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, April Biccum wrote:

> 
> The following is still racist because is still places white men at the 
> centre to be used a yard stick to measure the adaquecies of everyone 
> else -- namely Bhabha (to say nothing whatever of women).  Why do you 
> think it a compliment to be compared to canonized white men?
> 
> 
> ----Original Message Follows----
> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:12:24 -0500 (EST)
> From: Lisa McNee <lm23-AT-qsilver.queensu.ca>
> To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Bhabha's "bad" writing
> Reply-To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> 
> I agree with Raul Sanchez that it isn't easy to tell when dense prose
> is a sign of "grappling" with ideas or when it simply indicates 
> obscurity
> and poor writing. However, I think that it is unfair to accuse Hash of
> racism just because he believes Bhabha's writing to be less valuable 
> than
> Artistotle's or Kant's works. In fact, there is a back-handed compliment
> here, in my view--how many of us could be compared to Kant or
> Wittgenstein? The fact that we may want to compare Bhabha to these 
> giants
> when we're assessing the value of his work (even if we're not sure he's
> their equal, or if the verdict isn't clear yet) says a lot. 
> Best, Lisa
> 
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Raul Sanchez wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Hash wrote:
> > 
> > > Dutton said: "As a lifelong student of Kant, I know that philosophy 
> is not
> > > always well-written. But when Kant or Aristotle or Wittgenstein are 
> most
> > > obscure, it's because they are honestly grappling with the most
> > > complex and difficult problems the human mind can encounter...." 
> > 
> > It's not clear to me how the "grappling" of the above named is any 
> more
> > or less honest than what Bhabha is doing.  It seems to me that if 
> Dutton
> > (or anyone else) is going to accuse Bhabha of bad faith or dishonesty, 
> he
> > might provide more evidence beyond some passages of dense prose.
> > Otherwise his awards program looks like just another privileged white 
> male
> > rear guard action to protect the academy from the invasion of the 
> colored
> > folks.
> > 
> > raul sanchez
> > university writing program
> > + department of english
> > university of utah
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> 
>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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