Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:33:50 +1000
Subject: Re: This isn't a game for points...


Interestingly I dont read any antagonism in Eric's comments - a 
stream of consciousness and questions which seem to me to be 
trying to unpack some of the taken-for-grantedness of 
postcoloniality as a condition.

I am however, interested in Miriam's interest in systems, particularly 
the 'disciplinary' functions of the post-colonial systems we inhabit or 
which inhabit us. The way particular sets of social, cultural,  
linguistic, political, economic ... practices and texts regulate human 
subjects in conditions which some might call post-colonial. 
(How is a society rid of colonial discourse?)

Which brings me to Eric's question about the statement,

"I think that there is a distinction to be made between the view from
within and without the postcolonial condition ........and a large part of
the discourse of postcolonialism has to do with the ability to articulate
the within perspective and then make comparisons rather than the 
other way around........"

As sites of discursive struggle, individuals are subject to multiple and 
competing discourses - the post-colonial identity (like any other)  
may be represented as shifting, contradictory, unstable, not fixed ...

It is not only the articulation of this identity (personal accounts of 
multiplicity and contradiction) which might provide some insight into 
the 'view from within' kind of postcoloniality, but also the articulation 
of the processes without (social systems) which produce such 
identities and identifications

Steve . 






Date sent:      	Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:45:04 -0400
To:             	postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
From:           	Miriam Schacht <mschacht-AT-unm.edu>
Subject:        	This isn't a game for points...
Send reply to:  	postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

> As several others have said, I hesitate to respond to Eric for fear of
> calling forth another torrent of response or half-response. I was
> disconcerted at this latest post, however, because it seems that there is
> a lot of antagonism being read into these posts (or perhaps I'm not
> reading in enough?), and for a few other reasons. But for example, 
> 
> >Why the aggression against Polish taxi-drivers? I am, as far as I know,
> 
> When I read Marlene's post, I did not think that it had anything to do
> with aggression against Polish taxi drivers, but rather expressed
> frustration at a system in which a man trying to write in Polish must make
> a living driving taxis rather than with his writing, and may thus, for
> financial reasons (as well as other possible reasons), feel he needs to
> switch to writing in a language he - as the quote Eric posted from him
> demonstrates - is not entirely comfortable or happy with. (Nor am I trying
> to speak for Marlene here; merely trying to point out the different ways
> it is possible to read the same post, depending on what you're looking for
> in this discussion.) 
> 
> >If we carry on like this, every language on Earth
> >will be proscribed, 
> 
> Perhaps I have missed something - I don't always have the time necessary
> to read all the posts thoroughly - but I didn't see anyone "carrying on
> like this" or trying to proscribe any language. (Unless that's what you
> were calling for, Eric - that I wasn't sure of.) We're all aware that the
> choice of language is one fraught with any number of issues - most of
> which have already been raised, so I won't repeat them again - and I think
> this makes (or ought to make) most people wary of passing judgment on the
> language in which someone chooses to write. This is not to say we
> shouldn't be exploring the reasons for these choices, for we absolutely
> should; but I would no sooner presume to tell someone what country they
> should live in (which I believe was a topic of some discussion earlier)
> than tell them what language it is "right" for them to write in. I switch
> languages daily - having grown up bilingual, that's always been part of my
> life - and I wouldn't take kindly to anyone, particularly someone who does
> not know me and what the language choices mean and entail in my life -
> presuming to tell me which of those languages is "right" for me in any
> context. 
> 
> >Example: most of the world has already
> >written off Afrikaans as the language of apartheid, yet people still read
> >novels in German (its speakers ran concentration camps) and Russian (its
> >speakers ran the GuLag) without batting an eyelid. But as the Poles don't
> >have much clout anywhere (barring Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Pope), they
> >get baited as handy anti-Semite scapegoats, along with the Ukrainians.
> >So, by that logic, it wouldn't be right to read Polish and Ukrainian
> >novels when finding out about postcolonialism, would it...?
> 
> I'm really not sure I follow the logic. Are you trying to say that the
> reason no one learns Afrikaans is because we blame it for apartheid?
> (There are plenty of reasons that I, for example, have chosen to begin
> learning Russian before trying Afrikaans, which have nothing to do with
> apartheid and instead with other considerations such as geographic
> proximity, contact with Russian speakers, etc.) Or that it's just not fair
> that more people are learning Russian or German instead of Afrikaans? And
> how does the "anti-Semite scapegoating" preclude reading something as a
> postcolonial text? Are you looking for - or prescribing - your own version
> of moral certainty in language choice? Few of the choices we make about
> language are ever "fair," whether it's what language(s) we decide to live
> our lives in, how we communicate academically, or what we learn in our
> "spare" time. And what is "right," anyway? Whose definition counts for
> what's right? 
> 
> >Before we pillory poor old Muszer for selling out, let's have a
> >look at the region in more detail. It's quite postcolonial, if you ask
> >me...
> 
> Again, I think you seem to be reading quite a bit more antagonism into
> this exchange - I didn't see Muszer being "pilloried" (!). There's a
> difference between questioning the motivations for choices, examining the
> larger issues (often economic as well as cultural and more) behind such
> choices, and then *condemning* someone for those choices. It seems a far
> better use of time, rather than condemning individuals for certain choices
> - Third World intellectuals living abroad, colonized people choosing to
> write in the colonizers' language - to focus instead on the systemic
> problems that require these choices to be made and to carry a certain
> weight, and on the possibilities of changing (or, if you prefer,
> destroying) these [economic, colonial, ideological, etc] systems? I'm not
> saying "the system made them do it"; but the choices most of us face are
> already limited by systems beyond our immediate control or choice, and I
> would prefer to examine that, and the ways in which I can work to alter
> those limitation.
> 
> However, there was another point I wanted to make, which is the way you
> seem to be reading these posts as a game or battle ("Marlene wins on
> points, but..."). Is it really a question of "winning"? Does that mean
> that this latest post has you hoping Marlene "loses," or that you now
> assume I'm trying to "win"? I'm trying to raise some issues here;
> disagreement's a good thing (I've learned a great deal from people who
> disagree with me), but it's not about who's got more "points" racked up at
> the end of the day (or did I miss the Olympic judges scoring all of our
> posts?)  ;)  This isn't a boxing match, it's a discussion, and that means
> more than just thinking about ways to counter your "opponent." 
> 
> Miriam
> 
> ----------------
> mschacht-AT-unm.edu (Miriam Schacht)
> 
> 
>      --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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