Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 07:00:36 -0400
Subject: quite simply put...


some (and these are not "comprehensive" of the discussion so far in any
sense) simple questions the posts seem to be revolving around

a ) where and how do we "do Theory" as postcolonial scholars?

b) why the false (and yes this is implicitly and explicitly there - see some
of the most recent posts even) binary between theory and practise? [these
binaries, btw do injustice to the processes associated with both "Theories"
and "Practises" ]. Are we - even as we critique "Enlightenment" and
post-Enlightenment modes of thinking, still perpetuating an implicitly
colonialist binary where "we" do Theory  and explain "them" and their contexts?

c) in what contexts are these theories useful or not and why

d) Assuming that every context of action simultaneously "produces" and is
"informed" by  theory - what is the location of the Theorists who get heard
within hegemonic powerfields and what are the "theories" that never emerge
to complicate Theory?

e) do we need to be engaging with questions (a) to (d) at all as
"self-reflexive" postcolonial intellectuals? Or shall we just adopt a couple
"grand theories" and apply to all contexts like everyone else...

I don't see that there is anything "anti-theoretical" "anti-intellectual"
"anti-activist" or anything else about these simple questions (whoever they
came from - by this time in the discussion, I'm seeing text and no names).
The questions remain the same whichever Theorists - Grand Theories and
French Theories etc - we want to talk about.

but that's just my "2 cents" of course.
r



 
****************************************************
Radhika Gajjala
http://www.cyberdiva.org/
http://lingua.utdallas.edu:7000/4425/
http://moo.hawaii.edu:7000/599/



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