Welcome back to n p t e l, the national program
on technology enhanced learning, being brought
to you by the Indian institute of technology
and the Indian institute of science. We are
in module 4 of our series of lectures on English
language and literature, module 4 as you know
is being devoted to literary criticism. And
today, we are in lecture 10 of this module,
this lecture is entitled, post colonialism.
And, in a moment I shall be telling you, how
this lecture is going to be structured.
But before that, let us do, as we always do
a recap of the last lecture.
And the last lecture, you will recall was
devoted to the topic, post structuralism.
For instance we saw through Chris barker in
his book, the sage handbook of cultural studies,
wherein he says, that the word post as a prefix,
obviously suggest after. And therefore, post
structuralism in a sense is obviously after,
the school of criticism or even philosophy
as may put it known as structuralism.
But, the important point that we found in
the last lecture, as is being argued by Chris
barker is that, the post does not mean simply,
an after in the temporal sense, this after
is little complicated in that. If we look
at these words here, they in this involves
both the absorption of key ideas from structuralism,
and also a critique and transformation of
them. So, what we find here, that in by that
post structuralism is both are continuation
and a critique of 
the structuralist enterprise.
Next, we found that, whereas in structuralism,
meaning as given to us by so sure is understood
through a system of difference, hence meaning
is known as being differential and through
a system of relations, among the various units
of a system. We found that language in structuralism
is a self sufficient system, wherein meaning
emanates through a system of difference and
relation, among the units of that system.
Then we also found in both in structuralism,
which is going to know, which is going to
be radically critique by post structuralism.
We found in structuralism, that meaning
comes about through the organization of signs,
and you remember this was important word in
structuralism. And this stability of meaning
is achieved through the structures of this
organization. So, it was a neat way of understanding,
almost a formulae, if we may say, way of understanding
meaning, emanation and language.
Then we found a post structuralism, followed
or critiqued structuralism in that, it is
so, the production of meaning through signs
as endlessly differed. So, we found for instance
through the reader, that it meaning was not
only differential, but meaning was also differed
or meaning was also postponed. So, no text
had a complete meaning in itself or the authoritative
meaning, because by the very nature of the
sign system. Now, the post structuralists
we saw, did not you know, did not say that
there was no structure, their job was to show
as the structurality of the structure itself.
That the structure is there, but if you look
at it closely, you can dismantle that structure,
because the sign you know, there are no pure
signified, that is no signifier, which is
the part of the sign, no signifier has a or
an authoritative signified. There may be many
no answers to a sign, and meaning precisely
because, you know this is turning, the structuralist
claim you know on his head. This precisely,
because meaning comes about by a system of
difference, that system of relation and difference
is a fluid one.
This is what we had seen, and then as we seen
this slide, we found other word, word differance
given to us by Derrida, that is which is a
combination of, to differ and to defer.
Then, an important point that we found through
say philosophers, like Michelle Foucault was
that the subject, the one who experiences
is actually an effect of discourse, and this
is a word, we shall be coming across again
in today’s lecture. And we found that the
subject is really an effect of language, according
to the structuralist claim. And language and
practice, discourse and practice cannot be
separated. Our practices are also an effect
of language, this is something that we had
discussed in the last lecture, I did not go
into it again.
And we found that discourse is really a language,
is really you know, the power we can term
it after Michelle Foucault, as the power to
name. Discourse has the ability to create
a subject, to create it subjectivity, to create
its identity, you know indeed to create its
most personal or private of feelings, these
are all understood as the effect of discourse.
We for instance, if man is understood through
the discourse of religion, man is you know,
the effect, the subjectivity of man is understood
to be an effect of the larger discourse of
the religious kind.
Therefore, we found this is a term, which
almost line over this term here is a linking
term, that links has to post colonialism.
We found that this is anti-essentialist, there
if you recall from previous lectures, what
is essentialism, essentialism means that there
are essences to things. The things are essences
in themselves, there is something ontologically
philosophically speaking, there is something
ontologically true of things. But, post structuralism
in denying, a determinate meaning in denying
you know, an authoritative meaning or the
meaning of things, becomes anti-essentialist.
So, things, texts are amenable to several
meaning. Now, again as I said in the last
lecture, this does not mean that anything
goes. It is simply means that, there may be
readings of text, that do not follow or even
radically question assumed certain assumptions
of patterns of reading of techniques of reading,
bringing out some other relationship in the
text, which are otherwise you know, hidden
by you know, what we call the dominant modes
of reading or reading practices. So, this
point takes us directly, really to the lecture
that you know, rather than the topic of discussion
today, that is post colonialism.
Now, I will take the help of glossary, you
know of literary and cultural terms given
to us by Peter Brooker, it is a useful book.
You may look it up. So, glossary of you know,
literary theory, term using literary theory,
and it gives us these three terms. Look at
and all starting with post, post structuralism,
post modernism, post colonialism and he says
that you know, we have to look at the term
post there, as I said a while ago. In terms
of changes and departure, not in terms of
clear cut from pervious, from the word without
its prefix, post.
For instance, post structuralism is a change
and departure from the structuralist mode.
Post modernism is again a change and a departure,
but with link you know, obvious linkages to
modernism and post colonialism is also rendered
a problematic term, the sense of the post
here simply not, a dividing line between you
know, a colonial past and a post colonial
present. These terms I need you to understand
or slightly more complicated than simply being
a temporal term. Now, what is common among
these three terms, according to Peter Brooker?
We have say see, we have post structuralism,
post modernism, and post colonialism.
He says that these three schools of thought,
among other things; obviously, this is not
an exhaustive list. Among other things, they
point to difference, a term that had already
found in post structuralism. They point to
the most important, one of the most important,
in your terms not simply in literature word,
also in philosophy, which is meaning you
know the emanation of meaning or the formation
or the construction of meaning; critique,
critiquing established modes of thinking and
identity.
So, difference, meaning, critique, and identity
are some of the terms or some of you know,
you could say, some of you could say, among
the goals or you know, some of the important
constituent, you know terminology, in post
colonialism, post structuralism and post modernism.
So, these are basically the terms at these
three ways of thinking grapple with.
.
Another, you know before we go into post structuralism
proper. Another point that I would like to
raise here is, there are also critiques that
have drawn or pointed to the, you know the
similarities, both political and discursive
between say feminism and post colonialism.
For instance, these are my own words here,
which I would like to read out, scholars have
often pointed to the complementarities, shared
by post colonialism and feminism. As both
discourses, at they are at once discourses,
and there are at once struggles.
So, as both discourses and as to struggles
of real men and women, their concerns have
hinged largely around the question of human
dignity, freedom, and the opposing of oppression,
that ranges from opposing the creation of
cultural stereotypes to actual bondage. So,
both feminism just a while ago we saw, the
similarities between post modernism, post
colonialism, and post structuralism. As far
as feminism is concerned, it
shares you know, it shares with post colonialism,
not just you know, not just certain discursive
terms, but also the more important political,
political opposition to dominant genders on
the one hand, and to dominant racers and nation
on the other hands.
So, both have human dignity, human freedom
and the opposing of operation, as their ultimate
political goals. So, as complimentary discourses
in the general rubric of contemporary literary
and cultural studies, the two discourses of
feminism and post colonialism have raised,
this is extremely important, epistemological
challenges. From the point of view of discourse,
this is of course, the larger political end
to be met. But, also from the point of view
of discourse, the challenges have been, as
deep as raising epistemological questions.
So, some of you may have come across the term
epistemology, you know epistemology is a branch
of philosophy. Epistemology, I do not know
if I have mentioned this or will be mentioning
this in one of our lectures here, but let
me go into this a bit. Epistemology is branch
of philosophy, which deals with knowledge,
it is also known as the theory of knowledge.
So, epistemology raises a fundamental question
about knowledge.
For instance, beginning it with the question
like, what is knowledge, what are the sources
of knowledge, how do we know that a piece
of information is knowledge, what is a difference
between knowledge and belief, when and how
does a belief become knowledge, is it at all
possible for us to have complete knowledge,
what is truth as far as knowledge is concern,
what is the relationship between knowledge
and truth, etcetera?
So, these are as you will understand, you
know that these are very fundamental questions.
So, both feminism and post colonialism you
know, they challenge, they epistemology, they
raise epistemological challenges to hegemonic
structures. For instance, feminism would raise
epistemological challenges, and challenge
the knowledge formation, the way knowledge
is formed through a patriarchal, discourse
that favours men.
For instance, post colonialism would you know,
launch an epistemological attack on say to
be to say the very loosely here, ready to
a dominant, so call western way of constructing
knowledge, both about itself and the other.
So, let me quickly read this again that discourses
of feminism and post colonialism have raise
epistemological challenges to hegemonic structures,
and this is important here, both in academics
and in policy making, do you follow.
So, what you have done till now is we have
looked at the similarities between, or among
post structuralism, post modernism, post colonialism,
and feminism. And we have used one word, if
you recall here, we have used the word anti-essentialist,
all these are anti essentialist discourses
or as we say should be anti-essentialist discourses.
It should not be that feminism becomes an
essentialist discourse in its bit to try and
oppose structures that have been there, because
of patriarchy. In more about this, you know
the dangers here, towards the end of this
lecture.
What then is an epistemological challenge
that is being made by post colonialism? Let
us look at this slide carefully here; we have
these words here, the orient, that you are
aware of these two words, the oxidant and
the orient. The orient is here refer to the
east and the oxidant to the west. So, what
are now, let us raise this question? What
are the epistemological challenges that are
made by post colonial writers, post colonial
authors, post colonial critiques? Post colonialism,
as an enterprise, as a theory, as a discourse
and as an academic and political enterprise
does this.
It looks, at least look at this slide here,
it looks at studies or explores and critiques,
western structures. Now, in western structures,
you may add terms like discourses, if you
remember, discourses are what, discourses
are ways of speaking about something. For
instance, if you recall, if you look at man
as a religious in a point on the discourse
of religion, there is a way of talking about
man. There is a way in which we define man;
there is way in which we talk about purpose
of why man is you know why man exists in the
first place for instance. And if we talk from
say the discourse of biology for instance
then the definitions would change.
So, post colonial critiques holds that the
west, because of imperialism, because of actual
annexation, actual rule domination for you
know, because of which we had cultural domination
too and economic domination. They build certain
discourses; they build certain ways of talking.
For instance, when the British war in India,
they had certain discourses, certain ideas
of the so call natives of people in India,
and they had a certain way of talking about
the natives.
So, first the epistemological challenge is
to the discourse, where has and how has this
knowledge, which is given rise to a way of
speaking to his given rise to terminology,
how has, what are its sources, what are its
limits, that is what are the condition under
which such knowledge has emanated in the first
place. So, there is an attack on a discourses
positing, if we may use a word account a discourse
to the main hegemonic western discourse, the
discourse that has come from the oxidant particularly
through imperialism.
Now, this is the first level, in the second
level we find, that there is an attack or
there is you know a critique of the ideologies
that have. And now, what are we ideologies,
if we say that discourses are ways of speaking.
Then ideologies we may say our ways of seeing,
the ways of seeing or you know particular
lenses through which you know, intellectual
moral, lenses through which you look at something,
anything any phenomenon, any person, any ways,
any community, any subject and you holds,
which gives you certain ways of looking at
that.
So, you will understand that discourses, discourse
is not separate from ideology. Ideology ways
of seeing give you a certain discourse, ways
of speaking. Ways of speaking also on the
other hand, fit into your way of looking at
something, way of phase of seeing something.
So, it is some argued that the west, in post
colonialism it is argued, that the west has
created certain discourses, way of speaking,
and ideologies, ways of seeing, as far as
the east is concerned.
Then find also that culture, what are you
know, how is the culture of you know the nature,
that is a colonize country, how is it culture
viewed, how is it judged, how is you
know and how it shows in the discourses, on
the ways of you know, speaking and writing
about India for instance by the Britishers.
So, the studies also, they also epistemological
questions relating to culture. And finally
constructs, what are the constructs, what
are the images let me have, by the colonized
you know, colonized nations on the colonizes.
Now, this is or simply, because I we have
just begun to get into post you know, to talking
about post colonialism you know, the elementary
sort of way, it is not always the fact, that
in post colonialism you study only the colonizes
knowledge or the colonizes discourse and ideology.
A very important part of it is, how the colonized?
During colonization, have looked at the colonizers,
what are the forms of resistance, more about
this a while later, but simply because I was
talking about epistemology, and the challenges
to the core structure of knowledge, that is
why we have this slide here. And in that way,
we can say that the discourses, the ideologies,
the culture and constructs of the west, as
far as the east is concern are what, are critiqued
by the post colonial critiques.
So, definitely how we then bring in the term
anti-essentialism, if I asked you, this mode
of looking at western structures by the post
colonial critiques, how is it anti-essentialist?
You know sort of essentializing of the colonized
people was created by the western structures
to they put it very simply, post colonialism
has had talked about that, it was the end
of this lecture. There are so many you know,
there many ways in which post colonialism
may be, may also be critiqued, you know sort
of quite, would I feel our a certain myopic
ways of considering the west.
However, we will begin by talking about the
main orientation of the post colonialism.
There is therefore, now very important binary
here; this is what we call the otherisation
here. This binary is the division between
the self and the other. This is, this lies
at the core really, the crux of post colonial
criticism. On in one sense, the self is say
the colonizer, colonizing nation; the other
is the colonized. And from another perspective,
when we are talking from the point of view
of the colonized, the colonized becomes the
self, and the colonizer becomes the other.
You know this elementary binary opposition
here between the self and the other is at
once to defining crux of post colonialism.
As well as its theoretical limitation to be
always seeing and considering the, you know
the colonizer, all the colonizer whichever
perspective we are taking. As the other is
to miss out, what we find in the inter thesis
of this binary, is to miss out certain other
kinds of connections, certain complimentary
it is more about this later, we first talk
about post colonialism really.
Then, come to this while later right. Now,
I said that as with post structuralism, as
with post colonialism, post modernism. Post
colonialism can also, we cannot really divide
have mid division about, say from this state,
post colonialism begins, like we cannot have
definite vision about, when post modernism
comes away from post or post modernism come
away from modernism. There are many, who have
said that post modernism is nothing but you
know I am to quote, I forget the name of the
theorist; anyway to you know to see post modernism
as an incomplete project of modernity.
So, in post colonialism, you cannot really
pear out, you know the colonial and the post
colonial a) as I said, because there are problem
with the binary opposition between self other
and colonizer colonize. In other point of
view also, the anti colonialist discourse
is something that has seemed to be sort of
given us short shift, because of post colonialism.
Post colonialism in a sense of course, is
the culture, the ideology, the discourses
after actual you know, decolonization or actual
you know our colonizing country leaving the
colonize country to it is, so have its own
government etcetera, independent for that
matter put in simply.
But, for instance we look at this slide here,
there the theoretical political impetus was
given not necessarily within post colonial
setup. For instance, you may have heard of
Frantz fanon, who you know writer, who was
deeply you know involves with the struggle
for independence in Algeria for independence
from France. Fanon gave us some
of the most important you know, exploration
particularly from the point of view of psycho
linguistics and then psycho apathies also.
Of what colonialism does to the psyche to
the individual and the collective psyche,
if fanon himself was psychiatrist, who served
and you know and he show as a doctor and he
show first hand you know, the outcome of the
colonial you know, the colonial encounter
not only will form, not only on what happens
to the colonized the population in the colonized
nations, also what happens to the colonizing
forces, what happens to for instance show
white soldier, who is in Algeria, do you follow.
So, fanon here says, to speak means above
all to assume a culture, to support the weight
of a civilization.
Now, this is from his book black skin white
mask. And one of the most fundamental aspect
of you know, problems in with colonial post
colonial setup is that of language, when one
colonizing nation. So, imposes its language
on the natives. And fanon for instance says
that you know, to speak any languages is not
just to speak the language or to know the
letters and to know the grammar of the language.
It also is to assume its culture; its values,
its epistemologies and as I said, excuse me,
the weight of a whole civilization. If you
look at language very deeply, you will understand
the language is not simply having competence,
linguistic competence, it runs far more deep.
Then, when we come to academicians in post
colonialism, when you come to literary and
cultural criticism in academia, there are
several names here of course. But,
the most important here or the ones that I
have been fore grounded in anthologies, in
discussions, in books are these three names,
Edward Said, Homi Bhabha and Homi Bhabha not
the scientist, Homi Bhabha the theorist, and
Gayatri Chakraborty Spivalk. Now, if you look
at their biography, you find that, these are
not people from the west; they have come to
the west join the academia there.
And there was a time, when post colonial criticism,
was inaugurated, so to speak. As in remember
we have Fenen we have others like amices air
for instance, who talked about anti colonialism.
But, when you talk about post colonialism,
as you know being part of, being may part
of the literary even cannon, so to speak.
Then we talk about writers like Bhabha, Said,
and Gayatri Chakroborty Spivalk and we look
quickly at these and how they are you know
critiqued, and what they are some of their
formulations are.
Some of the points that they have been, you
know collectively looking at, each of them
giving more emphasis on some of these points
here, are again similar points that you will
find in post colonial literary criticism and
cultural criticism. And these are for instance
identity, the question of identity in a post
colonial situation, of reappropriation of
cultural and linguistic reappropriation by
people in a post colonial setup. Question
of resistance, how literary texts and other
cultural objects have resisted. Remember,
what we had seen a while ago, resisted we
are those four terms, the
discourses you know for instance, the ideologies
and you know, the cultural for instance and
the language of the colonizing nation.
So, how you know writers, creative writers
have resisted those dominant structures, those
dominance epistemes and brought about a reappropriation
of there you know of their native cultures.
Here, in this lecture I am not going to talk
about anyone critique or I am not going to
you know discuss the individual contribution
of critiques, this is more of a generalecture.
So that, you can understand overall in overall
sense, what post colonialism or the post colonial
enterprise entails. So, there are question
of identity being looked at by it is critiques
offer that said resistance and resistance
to the other culture and reappropriation you
know, redeeming so to speak or redemption
of one’s own culture.
Subaltern is an important term also as Spivalk
has said of a misunderstood term. Subaltern
is a term, which has been revived by Gartios
Pivok in her theory, contribution to theories
of post colonialism. The terms subaltern actually
comes you know usually the military term,
it comes from I know of from a position in
you know, in the forces in the army. So, one
of our more very important and also controversial
essays is can the subaltern speak, because
in our agencies, in the natives, in the colonized
people, how far they have a language and a
discourse of their own in broadly speaking.
Then another term hybridity, and this term
again is attributed to Homi Bhabha. And this
is, this talks about the hybrid condition
of the post colonial, straddle so to speak
between his or her own culture, and that of
the colonizing nation, even in a post colonial
setup, where for instance, just because you
are, you belong to an independent nation,
a nation that has become independent after
you know duration of having been colonized,
does not mean that from that date of independence
that you, you know your orientation, your
you know your so of speak, your values, your
constructs, your ideologies that they have
incompletely snapped.
So, an important point to realize is you may
be post colonial from a temporal or time point
of view, but the structures remain. So much,
so that there are so many critiques to say
that the British have you know, they left
India, but handed over the same structure
to a middle class bourgeois leadership without
much changes. We also see this in the phenomenon,
colonialism for instance. So, according to
Bhabha and many other
critics, we are really in such situations,
the post colonial is really a hybrid and never
really post colonial cannot be a post colonial.
Next, there also you know, post colonial criticism
also looks at efforts you know or you could
say, assertion of cultural belonging, question
of cultural belonging, not in the sense simply
of appropriation or also, but also as you
will find in many diasporic writers for instance.
Cultural belonging becomes a highly problematic
term, in the sense that you, the text did
not show you know, a clear belonging, sense
of belonging to a culture is in particularly
in diasporic writers, so problematic of cultural
belonging.
And power is not that other writers not critics,
not talk about power, but this also is an
important contribution by Edward Said, if
you recall Foucault, one of the most important
terms in the whole critical terminology of
Michelle Foucault is power. And Said Edward
Said works like orientalism, culture and imperialism.
Obviously, very show the influence of Michelle
Foucault power and discourse, these being
the two most important theoretical, you could
say pivots that Said had borrowed from Michelle
Foucault. So, see these are really some of
the terms and you should talk about you know,
when you beginning post colonial studies.
And at the same time, we have to understand
that these terms simply do not mean uni or
one dimensional way of looking. The colonizer
for instance, the colonizer is also, it is
also a change of subjectivity and identity
in the colonizer, when he or she comes into
contact with the colonized civilization or
the colonized culture. It is not that the
colonizer, in any colonial situation is not
that the colonizer just stands back and starts
making pronouncements on the colonize. A post
colonialism that is a sophisticated one, has
to look at these hidden you know, aspects
of subjectivity of identity of cultural belonging
for instance of power, it is not you know.
So, many have criticized and I would say rightly
so, words like Edward Said orientalism, which
was published in a 1978 I think, where he
said, now let us look at this slide here,
and that book he says talks about orientalism
as a systematic discourse, by which Europe
was able to manage and even produce the orient.
Look at this, Said says that the orient, the
east was systematically produced, constructed,
managed, given direction to, discourses where
created, by the by Europe about the orient,
about the east in so many different ways politically,
sociologically, militarily, ideologically,
scientifically, and imaginatively.
If you look this at this even as a standalone
quotation, you will find that it is the one
you know, one directional or one dimensional
way of looking, there is no is not talking
about the orient two, not simply in a temporarily
post colonial situation, even within a colonial
situation, the orient two having its own structures
about the west.
So, this is one of the problems, nevertheless
orientalism his work in orientalism published
in 1978, clearly showing the you know, clearly
showing the in you know, showing inspiration
from Michelle Foucault, as far as discourse
and power relation is are concern was a seminal
book, it was a landmark really. From which,
you know people took the queue critics to
the queue took the queue, and started to improvise
on it, started to show the multiple direction
and dimension away.
But, really without having I would say to
grant Edward Said you know, this without a
book like orientalism, you would not probably
have had post colonialism as you know an academic
you know, an academic discourse that had enormous
way, at least during a certain period of time.
And you know in sort of the rarefied rims
of academia, this was a book that is sort
of inaugurated it.
Then so well also, if you look at you know,
say if we want to compare, this is the next
point that I would like to talk about, you
want to compare post colonialism say to it
is kindred terms. For instance, what are it
is kindred terms, some of the synonyms really
are common wealth and topper post colonial
literature, some people say or commonwealth
literature or third world literature. Now,
the point that is raised by students is are
these the same, all these third terms commonwealth,
third world, and post colonial, the same.
From the point of view of time, from the point
over temporal dimension, I would say, safety
says that post colonial is a relatively newer
term. We will be talking about commonwealth
literatures, the discourse of commonwealth
literature is not, I would say not so anti
essentialist not so radical, as that of the
post colonialism neither is third world, the
term third world literature. Post colonial,
post colonial criticism as a discourse, has
a far larger terminology, has had of far more
longer sway.
And is far or you know you would say far more,
you know for more assort to be far more powerful,
both discursively, academically, and politically.
Than the kindred terms commonwealth and third
world, that is why we have clear terms in
post colonialism, as I said that the subaltern
you know, orientalism then you know post colonize
discourses for instance, hybridity, liminality.
There are clear cut, this is really discourse
that has grown and has that I said earlier,
has had a longer sway in academics.
What I am only do is now, I will quickly read
a passage from a book edited by Carol Breckenridge,
and you have some very, very, very fine grained
and very important relooks as our relookings
into orientalism. Edward Said orientalism,
which talked as I said about the way, the
west has been, the orient has been constructed
systematically and managed in many different
directions and dimensions by the west. So,
this is an important book, if you want to
move you know further from orientalism and
look at the critique and you know improvisation
of orientalism.
She says and I am reading from first chapter,
post implies that which is behind us, and
the past implies periodization, this is very
clear, very simple. Post is of course, something
that is already is past is behind us, talking
about something that we have left, and now
we are in a post situation. We can therefore,
speak of the postcolonial period as a framing
device, this is very important. It is not
simply about talking about a past colonize
past that has gone. And being in a postcolonial
situation, it is an epistemologically, it
is a framing device that is you have a different
parody, if I may used the word it is a parody
is the strong word here.
Let us stick to framing device, it is you
know it is a framing device such she says,
to characterize the second half of the 20th
century. The second half of the 20th century
may be look at through the lenses or the framing
device of post colonialism. The term again
she says postcolonial importantly you know,
displaces to focus on post war. So, is
another post here, it displaces the focus
on post-war as a historical marker. So, there
is a you know it makes a shift from a framing
device, which is basely mostly based on the
discourse of war and post-war replaces it
with post colonial, as a historical marker
for the last 50 years.
Post-war refers of course, to the period after
the Second World War, and although the war
was central to decolonization etcetera. It
is used to periodize history much less frequently
in the ex-colonial world than in the metropolitan
worlds of Europe and America. So, post-war
even if it talks about decolonization, we
will talk from a European perspective, do
you understand. And it is much, it is used
to periodize history and she says, much less
frequently in the ex-colonial war.
So, the post-war for you know in the earth
while colonized nation. Post-war is not a
strong, as far as resistance is concerned,
as far as ‘writes back’ is concerned,
I forgot to mention this very important book,
the empires rights back, the empire rights
back. This is a book that is immensely important,
as important as Edward Said orientalism for
instance, you may want to look up that text.
So this, the discourse of post-war is of no
used any you know, talk about post colonialism
and for the ex-colonize nations. Post colonialism
is a far more politically charge, and far
more useful, and powerful framing device.
So, then she says to call the second half
of the 20th century postcolonial, then is
to call for a reappraisal, re understanding
or relook of the way we frame contemporary
world
history. So, it is a different again, this
is different discourse that needs to be highlighted
as she says and to re-emphasize the rupture
in national and global relations, created
by the urge to forge independent nation states.
It brings to our attention, the relations
between colonialism and nationalism in the
politics of culture, in both the societies
of the ex-colonizer and those of the ex-colonized.
Now, there this is one point that I have said,
I because I mentioned earlier that we dealing
with it. Then this is you know the critique
of post colonialism and postcolonial criticism.
And I am reading from Peter van der Veer,
who’s one of the editors, I think of the
book by Carol Breckenridge with I had mentioned.
He says that although, we have to admit that
this is a forceful vision post colonialism,
it is also surely and he is very categorical
in this, it is also surely a misleading one.
It is itself a product of orientalism, since
is it neglects the important ways, this so
important here you know you see, ways in which
the so called Orientals, not only have shaped
their own world, but also the orientalist
views criticized by Said. This is what I,
you know I had mentioned earlier about being
in interstices of binary between colonizer
colonized. To look at what happens in between
to look at it not simply a side looked at
it as a systematic construction, one sided
construction of the orient.
Here, van der Veer is talking about, how also
took you know the need to look at, how the
Orientals so called Orientals have not only
as he said shaped their own world, but also
the orientalist views criticized by Said.
It would be as he says a serious mistake to
deny agency to the colonized in our effort
to show the force of colonial domination.
So, unwittingly postcolonial criticism may
sometimes end up, end up kind of undoing itself
in the sense that it establishes and re-establishes
the force of colonial discourse and domination,
when it sees the west is east being completely
created and managed by the west.
And we have forgotten to study the contribution
of the Orientals in this, whether it is regarding
orientalism or regarding it’s own reappraisal
and it is own attempts that reappropriations.
So, we come to the end of this and you know,
what I going to do is if now I am going to
pose a few questions, and I will give you
some hint as to how to answer these. For instance,
if you begin by saying you know name 
three prominent postcolonial critiques with
their corresponding or respective in you know
important, you know important terms that they
have contributed to the postcolonial discourse.
Then you would say that these are among others
Edward Said and with him, the terms orientalism
based on the influence of Foucault terms like
discourse and power, Gayatri chakroborty spivalk
and her among others you know him important
term, the subaltern. Subaltern of course,
said was not term constructed by Spivalk it
was is the term that comes from the military
and was used by Antonio gramsky very productively.
Then Homi Bhabha and his important terms of
hybridity, the hybrid condition, the mix condition,
the luminal condition of you know the, both
the post colonial and you know the colonizer
on the colonized.
Next, if you are asked the question like,
how does post colonialism give an epistemological
challenge to dominant discourses? Then you
say that like post modernism, like post structuralism,
post colonialism also makes epistemological
attacks or rather attacks on the epistemology
of how the west has created its knowledge.
Particularly, how the west has created the
knowledge of its other, which is the east
or the orient. So, it will talk about how,
what the sources of such knowledge are, what
the limits or conditions under which such
knowledge has been formed, the uses to which
has been put the nature of such knowledge.
Then, if you know you get a question like,
what are the most important you know, what
are the most important terms in postcolonial
criticism, what are the most important
points that come up in discussion of post
colonialism. Then you would say that, words
like identity, subjectivity, appropriation,
re-appropriation, discourse, power, these
are some of the terms subaltern, liminality
these are the some of the important terms
and important issues that are discussed. Mostly
issues of identity in so called postcolonial
nation states, these are some of the more
contemporary issues being discussed.
And finally, if you get a question like, how
do we critique post colonialism? Post colonialism
critiques west and knowledge formation about
the east. About the earth while colonies,
how do we you know, what are the criticism
to which post colonialism itself may be, what
are the dangers of doing post colonialism
in a so called narrow way, sort of way. Then
the answer would be this some of the answers
are you know, they go like this, for instance
post colonialism of this kind, as we find
in orientalism has been guilty of sort of
one dimensional way of looking you know, the
traffic is one dimensional, the west has created
the east, do you follow.
So, these are some of the dangers, some if
also seen you know, people who are critiques
who are against postmodernism have also seen
post colonialism of a more discursive kind
loosing you know, out on many other you know
urgent issues, a local issues you know by
talking about globalization, by talking about
new colonialism, by talking about the colonial
enterprise, we are we also not a sort of not
looking at are giving importance to what happens
within a nation. So, the self other binary
of colonizer or say of colonizer colonized
is so huge in this discourse, that it sort
of seems to do away, sort of neglect questions
of what happens, even within the colonizing
setup. And said some of the more important
questions have been raised by feminist for
instance.
Regarding the black women and the difference
between the black women, the political power
differences between the black women and the
black men. So, these are other binaries that
also get formed, but if we are in the larger
discourse of the all important binary of colonizer
colonized, and these are some of the issues
that get side lined. So, again I said, I have
not taken up any book, any work at length,
I have tried here to simply tell you what
post colonialism is, what it is orientation
is, what it is goals are.
And post colonialist criticism, literary criticism
would obviously look for you know the text
both from the colonizer and the colonized.
Worlds, cultures and look at how as I through
you know how the west has created the east
and from
other perspectives, for instance from Homi
Bhabha’s perceptive. The hybrid the mix
you know that then nuances of hybridity of
people who struggled to culture, so even in
a so temporarily postcolonial, post-independence
situation. So, there is lot of course, to
be learnt here lot of course to be you know,
you can look at the empires, empire writes
back, you can also look at orientalism, and
you get some of the new books that have come
up.
Thank you so much, and we shall meet again
in the next lecture.
