LITR / CRCL 5734:
Colonial & Postcolonial Literature
Sample Student Final Exam 2003
Kristy Pawlak
LITR 5734-Final Exam
06-30-03
Defining Postcolonialism
Essential to the process of studying postcolonial literature is arriving at a working definition of the classification itself. Though critics agree that postcolonial literature is a broad field which by its nature resists being strictly defined, there are some commonly held characteristics which serve to classify works as postcolonial. Some of these characteristics are stated plainly in postcolonial criticism while others are understood by the inclusion and exclusion of various works and authors in the classification. Though postcolonial critics seem to embrace this lack of a precise definition as a sort of rebellion against critical traditions, the imprecision can serve to point out the weaknesses of so vast a classification. By questioning the premises and acknowledging the inconsistencies of postcolonial criticism we can ultimately arrive at a more descriptive and useful definition of postcolonial works and begin to define where literature goes from here.
One problem that arises when defining whether a work is postcolonial is the fact that the classification is neither completely subject based nor is it completely time period based. For instance, there is no way to say that all works before a certain time are colonial and all works after it are postcolonial. Yes, it could be argued that we can look at individual territories or countries and mark when colonization ended, but there is no single date for the field as a whole. Furthermore, the lines are too fuzzy to even try to determine when colonization truly ends. Is it when the army leaves? The missionaries? The educators? The seemingly obvious answer is to say that postcolonial literature is written in formerly colonized areas to examine the effects of that colonization on the culture. But is this even accurate? What about works which are written in formerly colonized areas, but do not really concern themselves, at least not primarily with colonization? Take for example, The God of Small Things, Roy’s book is concerned largely with the caste system and the Love Laws and how they affected one family. The issues which drive the story exist independently from colonization and are largely unaffected by it. In regard to this work, it can be argued as Kimberly Jones does in her 2001 final exam, that Western thought, “continues to seep into every facet of colonized nations through language and culture.” She cites the examples of the twins’ fascination with English words and the value placed on Sophie Mol and her mother as English characters. She states that “Roy’s text depicts the ever-present and pervasive influence of European imperialism.” Though it is obvious that the English have influenced the society that the characters in Roy’s book live in, this influence is just a backdrop to the story. It is the setting in which the real story happens. To classify The God of Small Things as postcolonial is to say that a work need only be written by a writer in or from a formerly colonized area. This leads to the problem that postcolonial literature then has no end. History cannot be changed. All works written in formerly colonized areas will have in their settings the effects of colonization just as Roy’s work does. If this is all it takes to be postcolonial than every work written in an area after colonization is postcolonial regardless of whether or not it deals directly with colonization.
We can even expand the subject definition to include works from formerly colonized that act to correct the way in which colonized people were portrayed. This would include works such as Achebe’s Things Fall Apart which serves to show us that the society as seen through Conrad’s eyes was not accurate. This is a valid function of postcolonial literature. As stated in the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Criticism, “Postcolonial writing, then, is ... a process of dialogue and necessary correction” (582). However, this expansion does nothing to help include Roy’s book in the field. Its primary concern was not to simply show the world the true India. She wanted to expose and address what she considered flaws in her society. Then, regarding the problem of whether the classification of a work as postcolonial is based on the time in which it was written or the subject matter with which it deals, let us state that the first component of our newly clarified definition ought to be: Postcolonial literature consists of works written in areas which were once colonized or by writers from these areas and deal primarily with the affects of that colonization or seek to correct previous portrayals of their people or culture in colonial writings.
Moving on to an aspect of postcolonial writings which is seldom mentioned outright in definitions, but usually must be clarified in any writing concerning the definition of “postcolonial.” Namely, postcolonial works deal primarily with colonization of non-white cultures by European or white cultures. On the Emory University website, the exclusion of the United States from colonial studies is explained by pointing to its current position of power, its displacement of Native Americans, and its annexation of other parts of the world which can be called imperialism. The same site explains that Canada and Australia are often excluded because of their short struggle for independence, the lack of conflict between races, and the relative loyalty that remains to the “mother country.” In complete honesty, the application of all these reasons for exclusion to other countries which are considered postcolonial would eliminate many. In fact, there are other compelling reasons to exclude these countries. Therefore, it is more honest to simply add to our definition: Postcolonial literature consists of works written in non-white cultures which were once colonized by people of European descent or works by writers who are from these areas ... .
Though our “new” definition is more or less complete, let’s address some aspects of postcolonialism which very clearly exist, but do not need to and when looked at logically should not. First of all, postcolonial literature is literature on a mission. It is almost combative in feeling. There are clearly defined enemies–literary tradition, Western values, and the historical facts of the past. The Johns Hopkins Guide states that postcolonial literature has to “question the genesis of the Western canon.” Possibly this is just poor phrasing, but it really seems to be very illogical. There is no need to question the genesis of the traditional canon. The traditional canon is composed of the works of literature which existed at the time. The new canon which seeks to include literature from new cultures and new voices is great, but how could it have existed before the works existed? The works studied in this new canon are largely products of the last 50 years. Of course they aren’t a part of the traditional canon.
This leads to what is perhaps an area of hypocrisy in postcolonial studies. Postcolonial authors who deal closely with the effects that colonization had on their cultures tend to vilify every aspect of colonization. The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory uses criticism of The Empire Writes Back to point out problems with postcolonial studies in general. It states that often there is “less interest in a text which speaks for the indigenous than that which speaks against the imperial” (157). This tendency leads to problems that leave vast holes in the logical examination of postcolonial studies. First, and most obvious, for postcolonial works to even exist on a worldwide scale they have to be written in English. Not only that, but they most often have to use Western Universities and publishers to disseminate their ideas. Without colonization and its imposition of language and culture, Achebe and Roy could write nice tales about their homeland all day long and only be known to those who speak their native language and then only if they had the ability to publish and the luxury of making a living by telling others what they think. Without a doubt, Achebe would have been a powerful man within his village, but I doubt the world would know his name. In fact, according to the Brock University website article, most colonized people had no concept of a national or cultural literature before the colonizers introduced it.
Following this line, postcolonial works not only vilify the colonizers, but they do so by using the same tactics that they criticize colonial literature for using. In his article “Postcolonial Perspective,” Terry DeHay states that postcolonial “texts very often decenter the white characters, who become faceless, nameless representatives of a dominating power.” The afore mentioned Brock University website goes on to point out that using the concept of “otherness” the western concept of the oriental is based on the Manichean allegory which sees that world as filled with mutually exclusive opposites. It then points out that the postcolonial texts’ tendency to “simply reverse this polarizing is to be complicit in its totalizing and identity-destroying power.” You can see this in works such as Lucy by Jamaica Kincaid which through the use of the very limiting first person narrative effectively refuses to give the white characters any voice or identity except that which is filtered through the narrators eyes. This is not necessarily a problem in that the reader can understand that what they are getting is not fact, but the perception of the narrator. However, readings of colonial works such as Robinson Crusoe are not often given the same courtesy and are said to purposely rob indigenous people, like Friday, of their voice.
Another problem which relates to the vilification of the colonizer in postcolonial texts is the romanticizing of the colonized land and people. To read some postcolonial texts and writers is to feel that the whole world was a perfect, unspoiled Utopia until the horrible Europeans messed it all up. Some like Jamaica Kincaid, in A Small Place, actually state that it would be better to live with people who live like “monkeys in trees” than to be what colonizers made her. This kind of self hatred does no one any good and is obviously meant for shock value since at last report she had made no effort to actually return to a such a primitive civilization and is enjoying the fruits of free speech and the capitalism that are the results of the culture which she so deplores. Even in more reasonable and less inflammatory works by both Kincaid and other postcolonial writers the tendency to ignore the problems of their own culture in pursuit of the greater evil of imperialism can be distracting. For instance, in Lucy, Kincaid shows an instance of pedophila which is glorified through the narrator. She also portrays her culture as somewhat lax in the areas of sexual promiscuity in her treatment of the father’s conduct which she relates, but does not condemn. She also is very commonplace about the fact of her narrators sexual activity at age fourteen. In Things Fall Apart, we see instances of infanticide which are not addressed from a moral standpoint except by the “villains” of the story, the missionaries and their converts. All of this is not to say that the authors endorse these behaviors. Rather, they were just telling a story, but it does contribute to the feeling that the only bad in their society came from colonization. The rest is just culture. As stated on the Emory University website, “The emphasis on colonizer/colonized relations, moreover, obscures the operation of internal oppression within the colonies.”
An oft heard criticism of imperialism and Western ideals as a whole and specifically in literature is that colonial forces sought to continuously impose their language, culture, and way of life onto a people who were doing fine before they got there and never asked them to come. This was mentioned repeatedly in class discussions of Crusoe and his actions upon arriving on the island. It was questioned why he had to come and set about changing the “Eden” that he had found. He was derided for setting up a little version of England on the island. But who wouldn’t do the same? If a native had gotten blown off course and stranded on the island, would he not have proceeded to set up an abode and lifestyle which was like that which he came from? Look to Third Wave immigrants who are setting up lives within new countries to resemble those they left (Chinatown, Little Havana, etc.). These men and women come to Europe and America and begin to infuse their culture into that which exists when they arrive. This is to say not that imperialism was all good, but that it was not all bad either. The tendency to take your culture with you to new lands is not exclusive to colonizers.
Finally, the most compelling reason for a more specific and limiting definition of postcolonial literature is that it will allow for a more positive and productive study of literature from former colonized areas. As previously discussed, the current broad definition serves to include basically all literature written in former colonized areas or by citizens of these areas regardless of the prevalent themes of the works. What this does is force the people of these cultures to constantly identify with their former colonizers in a negative manner. By calling all their literature “postcolonial” it somehow belittles or negates the fact that the writers might have something valuable to say that has nothing to do with colonization. Furthermore, for generations born years after colonization, this continued classification forces them to choose between aspects of their culture that cannot be changed. If they are forced to always differentiate between their original culture and the culture of the colonists then they will never be able to embrace a new “hybrid” culture that acknowledges the past and takes good from both sides and moves on. The current idea of postcolonialism is polarizing and produces either angry or confused writers. Kincaid’s anger is shown clearly in A Small Place and the confusion of Derek Walcott is shown in much of his work including in the poem “A Far Cry from Africa” when he says, “how choose, Between this Africa and the English tongue I love?” (18). In fact, you can see Walcott’s dilemma just by looking at the subject matter of his poems. He is resistant to his English side and yet almost every poem he writes refers to some classic piece of literature from the traditional canon. Without colonization would he even know these works? In response to Emily’s poetry presentation this semester Robert pointed out that Walcott has a great internal struggle as well as great external struggles due to culture. Walcott’s loyalty to his traditional culture is in conflict with his European education.
So, what is the answer? There is a real need for postcolonial literature and studies. There is a need to correct misguided representations of colonized people, a need to give voiceless people a voice, and a need to expand the canon of literature to include diverse works from all over the world. This said, there is no reason that this process has to reconstruct images of the self and other in ways that will ultimately be just as harmful as the original constructions by the colonial writers. Let’s redefine postcolonial literature as: Postcolonial literature consists of works written in non-white cultures which were once colonized by people of European descent or works written by writers who are from these cultures and deal primarily with the direct effects of that colonization or seek to correct previous portrayals of their people or culture in colonial writings. So what to do with all the rest of the literature? How about calling it hybrid literature? We can then set about studying the positive and negative effects of the inevitable mixing of various cultures, races, and religions from a fresh perspective that is less about looking at the past and more about looking to the potential of the future. Such a project could be called cultural hybridization studies.
So in this newly constructed definition of “postcolonial” and brand new field hybridization studies, where do our six works fit in? First of all, the most purely colonial/postcolonial dialogue is between Heart of Darkness and Things Fall Apart.
Heart of Darkness is a tale which takes place entirely within the context of England’s colonization and subsequent exploitation of Africa in search of ivory. Though the scope of the work is limiting in that it is more or less a first person narrative, thus limiting the voices we hear, we do get a very good idea of the prevalent attitude of the English in regards to the Africans and their land. This Eurocentric view is especially obvious in the English characters like Marlow’s aunt who have never been to Africa and have romanticized views of Christianizing the natives. In the characters of Marlow himself as well as Kurtz, we are able to see the effects, both positive and negative, of colonization on the colonizers themselves. Things Fall Apart is the postcolonial answer to Heart of Darkness. In our new working definition of postcolonial, Things Fall Apart fits perfectly. It is a work written by a writer from a once colonized area which attempts to correct erroneous views of the native culture in response to a colonial text. Though Achebe does elsewhere, his text does not explicitly condemn the colonizers as a whole. Rather, he focuses mainly on showing the culture that existed prior to colonization–both the good parts and the bad–and on showing the readers how the colonizers appeared through the eyes of the natives. All in all, when read by itself (as opposed to in conjunction with Achebe’s article on racism in Heart of Darkness) Things Fall Apart is exactly what postcolonial works should be.
The next pair of texts, A Passage to India and The God of Small Things, seem to fit the colonial/postcolonial dialogue at first glance, but if we apply the more limiting definition The God of Small Things really straddles the fence. A Passage to India is an obviously colonial text in that the entire subject, theme, etc. of the book deals with the British colonization of India and its various aspects both socially and politically. However, it might be said that A Passage to India is a more enlightened sort of colonial text in that the native culture is not only given a voice, but a major character in Aziz. This said, The God of Small Things, really doesn’t lend itself to a dialogue with A Passage to India in any way that is meaningful to postcolonialism. As stated earlier, the main theme in The God of Small Things has nothing to do with the aftermath of colonialism. The setting of the story has ties to India’s colonial past, but the action does not. Furthermore, Roy makes no statements which indicate the anger and bitterness towards England that many postcolonial works or their authors are known for. Some characters in the story have difficult times when they go to England or America, but Roy does not seem to blame this on anyone. The God of Small Things is a great example of a text that could be studied as hybrid literature. Roy has embraced parts of her culture that came from the English such as language and education; she has embraced parts of traditional Indian culture which she values; and she has learned to question aspects of her culture with which she finds fault. Even more importantly, she does not seem to feel a need to separate the different components of her culture. She seems to have come further in accepting a new, hybrid culture than any of the other authors. This is why her mentions of English influences in India come across as simply descriptions rather than condemnations.
The last pair of texts which we read in dialogue with one another is Robinson Crusoe and Lucy. This pair caused a little more difficulty when trying to categorize them. First of all, there was an impulse to say that Robinson Crusoe does not deal with the colonization of a previously peopled area and therefore is not a colonial text. However, it does lend itself to colonial studies not only because Crusoe was a part of the colonization of Brazil, but also because it gives readers an honest glimpse of a colonial mind set. Because Defoe was writing from a perspective of someone who had not likely heard any criticism of imperialism and had no reason to doubt the moral basis for such actions, he provides us a character in Crusoe who is an unbiased study of the early colonial mind. Lucy’s place in all of this is a bit harder. First of all, though the author has made her opinion of imperialism crystal clear in writings such as A Small Place, Lucy does not really deal straightforwardly with these issues. Rather, Lucy is a study of a young woman trying to find her place in the world. First, she deals with her own relationship with her mother and then she compounds these issues by moving to a foreign land where the culture is different. The only thing that qualifies Lucy as a postcolonial text is Kincaid’s other work. Evaluated on its own, Lucy is an example of what we are calling a hybrid text. It deals with cultural issues, but they are only related to colonialism in that colonialism originally created the hybridization of the culture into which Lucy was born. In fact, as mentioned repeatedly in class, if you take the author’s known views out of the discussion, Lucy could be the first person narrative of many nineteen year old girls struggling with their identity and maternal relationships.
Though the proposed definition of postcolonial literature effectively removed two of the three postcolonial texts from the category, in the long run such a restrictive definition will have a positive result. Both existing and new works from formerly colonized areas can be recognized for their worth without having to apologize for their acceptance of a new language or other aspects of Western culture. Likewise, the traditional canon of literature will naturally expand with the addition of quality literature from both postcolonial and hybrid works. Overall, postcolonial literature has served its purpose and now must give way to new generations of hybrid writers who need not be burdened with the guilt, anger, and confusion of their predecessors.
In conclusion, by restricting the definition of postcolonial literature we are able to classify other works by authors in formerly colonized areas without automatically linking them in many cases with their former oppressors. Likewise, we can start to disassemble the self/other construct which was so damaging in colonial literature and yet is having the same polarizing effect on postcolonialism as well. By looking at texts in terms of their hybridization we can celebrate all aspects of various cultures and move toward a self/self outlook which will be much more positive and enlightening. As the popular Don Henley song goes, “Don’t look back. You can never go back.” Hybrid literature will focus on the potential of the future, not on the mistakes of the past which will be dealt with and corrected in postcolonial literature.