|
Student Midterm submissions 2013 (2013 midterm assignment) |
LITR 5831 World Literature
|
 |
Gregory Buchanan
08 October 2013
The Question of Narrative Privilege
Dialogue is the method in postcolonial studies that
reconciles, or at least attempts to reconcile, competing cultural narratives. We
have studied the historically dominant narrative of the colonizer as it enters
into dialogue with the competitive narrative of the colonized. Although the
narrative of the colonized is often privileged in postcolonial literature, the
reason is not always clear. Examining the mechanism of dialogue may yield
insight into this decision, which is necessary for ensuring the integrity of the
discipline. Four students have investigated the concept of dialogue in the past:
Keaton Patterson in a 2011 mid-term exam “Self, Other, U.S.: The Promise of
Dialogue between Colonial and Postcolonial Texts,” Mallory Rogers in a 2011
mid-term exam “The Path to the Emergence of a ‘New and Improved’ Native,”
Charles Colson in a 2009 final exam “Language, Power, and Interpretation,” and
Corrie Manigold in a 2008 mid-term exam “Articulating Encounters: the ‘Other’ in
Colonial and Postcolonial Texts.” Working through questions surrounding dialogue
as it is understood in these exams will answer for an examination of the
mechanism. Specifically, I will inquire into how dialogue treats a multiplicity
of narratives, assesses the idea of progress in the historically dominant
narrative, compares value systems, and ultimately justifies privileging one
narrative above another.
Although colonial powers created
historically dominant narratives which were imposed upon colonized peoples, the
postcolonial world offers a multiplicity of competing narratives, by which the
authority of a single narrative can be brought into question. Patterson observes
that Kinkaid responds to the erasure of her cultural heritage that followed from
the imposition of the English colonial narrative. Over time, Kinkaid ostensibly
developed a resistance to this narrative and sought to re-establish her cultural
identity. In doing so, as Rogers notes, she acquired “hybridity” or the capacity
to criticize the English colonists by presenting an alternative narrative. This
alternative narrative competes with the representation of colonial peoples
articulated by colonizers. Divergent points of view of the other constitute
competitive narratives, and it is through Kinkaid’s hybridity that she is able
to generate a multiplicity of narratives that oppose the historically dominant
narrative of the English. Manigold suggests that the creation of a multiplicity
of narrative is an attempt to reconcile difference between the colonized and the
colonizer through respect for one another. Engaging in this process creates a
productive dialogue that uses a multiplicity of narratives to safeguard accurate
representation.
Narratives competitive with the historically
dominant narrative challenge the implication that colonization inherently
improves the colonized. Patterson cites the notion of improvement as an
essential feature of the narrative promoted by colonial powers. Rogers, again,
maintains that the colonized who have acquired hybridity have the capacity to
denounce colonialism. This denunciation extends to a refutation of the idea of
improvement because the hybrid can evaluate the contributions made to his or her
society by the colonial power. Colson argues that by participating in the
language of the colonial power, the hybrid gains access to its narratives.
Effectively, the colonized becomes an “interpreter of cultures” and is able to
comparatively judge claims of improvement. Almost always they decide, as Kinkaid
does, that these claims are false. Their dissent manifests itself as a
competitive narrative, which enters into dialogue with the historically dominant
narrative.
Having established the idea of competitive
narratives from the mid-terms of Patterson and Manigold, I successfully engaged
the framework with arguments from multiplicity and challenges to improvement.
This attests to the clarity of their work, as I was able to use their ideas to
engage others successfully. Rogers and Colson, whose exams involve the concept
of hybridity and “double-consciousness” provided excellent insight into how the
colonized position themselves to answer the narratives of their colonizers. I
found the idea of Colson to be particularly interesting: colonized people are
able to critique the language-constructions of their colonizers by becoming
interpreters of the language itself. The inference asserts that interpretation
of cultures follows from interpretation of languages, which seems plausible and
is very fitting. The argument did much to increase my understanding of the
mechanics of cultural dialogue.
Narratives in competition with the dominant
historical narrative necessarily imply a contrast of value systems. Rogers
explains that “assimilation of the native characters into the dominant European
culture through Western education idea and Christianity” is responsible for “a
dual-personality, which is the basis of hybridity.” This dual-personality
manifests itself in internal conflicts within the articulator of the colonial
narrative. Rogers argues that Lucy resents the Wordsworth poem about daffodils
without having any valid cultural reason for resenting daffodils themselves. The
imposition of value-judgments through education Lucy was compelled to undergo
accounts for this conflict. As Colson observes, language learning is a form of
empowerment, even training in cultural interpretation. However, Colson does not
consider the inequality of cultural values implicit in the exchange between
colonized and the colonizer. The dialogue does not allow equitable comparison in
many cases, causing the interpretive judgments of the colonized to come into
question. Despite this difficulty, a multiplicity of narratives competitive with
the narrative of the colonizer must be allowed some validity, Manigold insists.
Especially when the supposed benevolence of the colonizer is readily contrasted
with instances of abuse.
Because the cultural dialogue involves a
dispute of values, one narrative must necessarily be more privileged than
another—either that of the colonized or the colonizer. Patterson comments that
“any narrative is shaped by the authority of its perspective.” So the question
becomes: Who has the superior perspective? Hybrids are endowed with a greater
sense perspective because of the cultural empowerment they receive. While
language-learning does contribute to this empowerment, as Colson maintains, I
believe assimilation into European values is enough to give perspective
requisite for evaluation. To revisit the dual-personality argument of Roger, she
maintains that this fundamental assimilation is the basis of hybridity. Colson
argue that hybridity leads to empowering language-learning, but because of the
problem of cultural values in language, I believe simple exposure to the values
of the colonizing society is all that is necessary to evaluate it. Colson’s
argument goes too far.
The work of Patterson, Rogers, Colson, and
Manigold is excellent overall; however, I found certain arguments more helpful
than others when working out the question of narrative privilege. The
language-learning argument of Colson is impressive, but I fear that it does not
account for cultural values implicit in language. The authority to privilege
one’s narrative has to come before the moment that narrative is articulated.
Otherwise, one is already participating in the dialogue. For this reason, I
prefer Roger’s argument regarding dual-personality, especially as it relates to
the education of the hybrid. It justifies privileging the narrative of the
colonized over that of the colonizer. It is interesting to note, however, that
colonizer participation in the colonized culture would pose a counter-criticism
of values. This is the major vulnerability of the argument.
I am impressed with the amount of
information I was able to derive from the exams while answering the question of
competitive narratives. Understanding of the mechanics of dialogue in
postcolonial literature is essential, and the high volume of agreement in the
exam papers suggests substantial interest. The reason why the narrative of the
colonized is privileged over that of the colonizer is education. While the
colonized hybrid is exposed to the values of the colonizer, the opposite is
rarely true. If it were, further investigation would be necessary.
Impediments to a Synthesis of Self and
Other
Dialectical synthesis between self and other
is a problematic concept in postcolonial literature. It rests on the subordinate
concept of difference, the intermediate state between self and other. Groups
often “other-ize” one another by emphasizing the differences between them.
However, in many cases, groups attempt to liken others to themselves. The ideal
situation is that two opposed groups will agree to engage in a synthesis, a
mid-point of difference that requires each to sacrifice in order to reach it.
The result is a cultural exchange between equals that mutually benefit. Yet when
studying postcolonial literature, it must be observed that colonizers and the
colonized rarely enter into an equally beneficial cultural exchange. Often the
colonizer compels the colonized population to undergo excessive differentiation
from its original self without reciprocating the effort. No true synthesis can
result from such abuse. Colonizers often employ certain methods to avoid
participating in a true synthesis: they will re-invent racial identities,
manipulate history, divide labor, and appropriate technology. These are
occasionally adopted by the colonized populations, but rarely. Ultimately they
affect critical understandings of personal difference and social influence
necessary for cultural exchange between colonizers and the colonized. When they
are allowed to continue, they manifest themselves in even contemporary
occurrences, such as neo-imperialism.
Re-invention of racial identity is one
method employed by the colonizer to prevent a profitable exchange between self
and other. Specifically, the colonizer may impute to the colonized
characteristics that suggest a shared racial identity when none exists. In
Robinson Crusoe, Robinson attributes
European features to Friday, implying an unjustified measure of racial
similarity: “[Friday] had all the sweetness and softness of an European in his
countenance” (Defoe 172). Daniel does something similar in
The Man Who Would Be King when he
asserts that the people of Kafiristan have some secret European ancestry:
“They’re the Lost Tribes, or something like it, and they’re grown to be English”
(Kipling 2.42). Jamaica Kinkaid also comments in “A Small Place” that the
English colonization of Antigua was an attempt to turn everyone English (92). In
addition, Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” characterizes all
colonized peoples as “Half devil and half child” (8). In each case, the
authentic racial identities of colonized peoples are ignored and replaced.
Another method by which re-invention interferes with a potentially beneficial
cultural exchange involves the colonizer assuming a racial or personal identity
crafted for them by the colonized.
Colonized peoples also re-invent the racial
identities of their colonizers, and colonizers accept the re-invention. In
George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant,” natives have re-invented the racial
identity of their colonizers by expecting them to behave in a certain manner
simply because of their race. The protagonist describes the effect on the
colonizer: “He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it” (855). This mask is
the racially motivated expectations of the natives. Similarly, in Kinkaid’s
Lucy, Mariah adopts an unwarranted
re-invention of her racial identity, partially in an attempt to commiserate with
Lucy: “Mariah says, ‘I have Indian blood in me’” (40). Although this upsets
Lucy, Mariah intended it to suggest some form of cultural synthesis. Derek
Walcott hints at a racially-motivated expectation in his “God Rest Ye Merry
Gentlemen, Part I” by juxtaposing night with revelation. Line twenty-two is his
description of the night: “The night was white. There was nothing to hide.” The
unexpected color of the night suggests social commentary; specifically, a
revelation from or of the white race. In these examples, colonizers attempt to
bridge the difference between self and other by adopting the identity suggested
by colonized people. This behavior also prevents a meaningful exchange between
the groups.
Manipulation of history is another means
utilized by the colonizer to discourage meaningful exchange between self and
other. Often the history of colonized peoples is ignored by their colonizers, or
little interest is shown in it. Robinson
Crusoe records the dismissal of Friday’s religious beliefs as a “cheat” and
“priestcraft even amongst the most blinded ignorant pagans” (Defoe 181). As
Robinson dismisses the personal history of Friday, Mariah casually passes over
learning about the history of Lucy, despite Lucy’s invitation: “You are welcome
to [my history] if you like” (Kinkaid 19). The remainder of
Lucy suggests that while Mariah
remains attentive to Lucy’s life and culture, she does not invest herself in it
substantially. The attitude of English colonizers toward Antiguan natives in “A
Small Place” similarly reflects a disinterest in the history of the colonized.
Kinkaid remarks that “Even if I really came from people who were living like
monkeys in trees, it was better to be that than what happened to me, what I
became after I met you” (94). It is likely that English colonizers praised their
work by comparing it with Antigua prior to colonization. They probably imagined
it to be primitive, as Kinkaid describes. However, this imagination is an
invention which the English choose to embrace instead of the true history of
Antigua. In each case, history is manipulated to the advantage of the colonizer,
which inhibits productive exchange between self and other. This abuse robs the
other of authenticity, rendering it unrecognizable to itself.
A more specific hindrance to cultural
exchange within the manipulation of history concerns religion. Peachy and Daniel
in The Man Who Would Be King rely on
the religious history of Kafiristan in order to colonize it. Daniel claims to be
the son of Alexander in hopes of being added to the nation’s pantheon. (2.30
Kipling) In Kipling’s “The White Man’s Burden,” manipulation of the Christ myth
casts the colonizer in the flattering role of savior of the world. In contrast,
the colonized are represented as the ungrateful recipients of the benevolence of
the colonized: “The silent, sullen peoples” (47). The colonizer is elevated by
this abuse of religious history to a position far above that of the colonized.
Walcott in “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen, Part II” associates the Christ myth
with the colonizing power of America by placing the events of the Nativity in an
American city. Doing so emphasizes the authority with which colonial powers have
operated in the name of manipulated religion in the past. More explicitly,
Walcott states that associating Johannesburg with the Americanized Christ myth
is “anti-American” (20). Manipulating religious history is counter-productive to
profitable exchange between self and other because it illegitimately elevates
the colonizing self while alienating the colonized other.
A third measure colonizers practice to
prevent cultural exchange is the division of labor. They represent their labor
as noble and that of the colonized as insignificant or inefficacious. In
Robinson Crusoe, Robinson names
himself king of the island but relegates Friday to field work. He requires
everyone who enters his island to acknowledge his kingship. In
The Man Who Would Be King, Daniel
plans to modernize Kafiristan. From the perspective of the colonizer, this is
ideal. However, doing so does not take into account the cultural expectations of
the people of Kafiristan. What Daniel the colonizer views as noble does not
concern the colonized people of Kafiristan. In “A Small Place,” the bureaucracy
established by the English colonial government is representative of divided
labor. The colonizer takes on the task of administrating the resources of the
colonized, while the colonized must produce the resources. This maintains the
gulf between self and other because the notions that support divided labor, such
as Gross National Product, are entirely the idea of the colonizer. Yet they are
imposed on the colonized. (Kinkaid 94) So long as the colonizer continues to
disparage the work of the colonized, no cultural exchange is possible.
Dialectical synthesis cannot occur without equal cooperation from both self and
other.
The perspective of the colonized relates
intertextually with that of the colonizer regarding perceptions of labor. In
several course texts, characters representative of the colonized voice their
dissatisfaction with the disparagement of their labor. Walcott’s “Crusoe’s
Island” concludes with an observation that an effort to impart wisdom to the
“progeny of Friday” (106) is inferior to the extent that “the bell’s /
Transfiguring tongue can bless” (119-120). The speaker’s attempt to impart the
life experience of the colonized is futile. Like Walcott, the natives in
“Shooting an Elephant” are similarly disempowered. While a colonial policeman
can protect the community with firepower, the local inhabitants are defenseless
against any threat, even a mad elephant. All they can do is take away meat for
consumption after the threat is over. And the only guarantee that the policeman
will continue his work—protecting the community—is the expectation of continued
colonization, which is unsatisfying. The colonized find the work they do to
survive subordinated to the work the policeman does to protect. In
Lucy, Lucy is upset to learn that
certain people do not respect her work. Dinah is their representative, the
colonial divider-of-labor. She regards Lucy—who is virtually a part of Lewis and
Mariah’s family—as nothing more than “the girl who takes care of the children”
(Kinkaid 58). Because the work of the colonized is disrespected by the
colonizer, meaningful cultural exchange cannot occur.
Appropriation of technology constitutes the
fourth stratagem employed by colonizers to interfere with productive cultural
exchange. More specifically, colonizers appropriate the technology of the
colonized and integrate it into their aesthetics. As this activity presumes to
attribute meaning to an artifact originated by a different culture, its effect
is alienating. In Lucy, Lucy
recognizes two plants, “cassy and dagger” (99), at a party she attends. Although
she knew practical purposes for them in her homeland, she finds they have been
converted from technological implements to aesthetic artifacts. Similarly, in
“Shooting an Elephant,” the protagonist finds that an Indian elephant, which is
considered technology in the colonized society, has become an aesthetic symbol
for the colonized society itself. This transference from the technological to
the aesthetic has negative consequences when he is forced to interact with it.
It is the pressure of the colonized society that causes him to kill the
elephant, despite his disinclination. Therefore, appropriation of technology
inhibits cultural exchange for both the colonizer and the colonized through a
confusion of values.
Having discussed four methods by which the
colonizer prevents cultural exchange from occurring, investigating the
similarities between them may yield further insight. Specifically, the
re-invention of racial identity and manipulation of history prevent cultural
exchange by affecting conceptions of personal difference between self and other.
The colonizers and colonized appear to one another as either imperfect selves or
radically different others. This is because in either case, their fundamental
similarity—humanity—is obscured by an abuse of the concept of difference.
Failing to appreciate the homogeneity of personal difference creates a
reciprocal fault. Both self and other imagine possible other selves that fail to
attain to selfhood. They do not respect these. In reality, however, the
intransigent positions of self and other contain an infinite spectrum of
indistinguishable points of difference between them. No point is substantially
different in character than any other. Some are obviously further removed from
self than others, but the only dissimilarity in any two points is of magnitude
and not quality. Re-inventions of racial identity or history attempt to make an
‘imperfect self’ into a more perfect self for the purpose of assimilation (but
actually fail) or into a radically imperfect self, for the purpose of complete
disassociation. The only method effective in overcoming the abuse of personal
difference is recognition of common humanity.
Dividing labor and appropriating technology
prevent cultural exchange in a similar way—through social influence. Both
practices emphasize the subjectivity of some aspect of society. Elevating one
kind of labor above another requires subjective judgment, as does appropriating
certain technology for aesthetic appreciation. The inconsistency with which
these activities occur suggests an underlying sentimentality that motivates
them. An essential element of many economies is a subjective theory of value,
which incorporates the idea of sentimentality. Because of this, there is no
simple method of overcoming the differences in society that exist between
cultures that do not share a subjective theory of value. Moreover, the presence
of a subjective theory of value in the economy of a society increases the
likelihood of that society engaging in neo-imperialism.
Neo-imperialism persists in contemporary
America and other previously colonial nations as an effort to maintain a “gap
between rich and poor countries” (Nkrumah). Economic inequality is the primary
consequence of neo-imperialism, an extension of the social influence which
prevents cultural exchange. Social difference is magnified as capital is used to
exploit less developed parts of the world, not improve it (Nkrumah). In
Lucy, Mariah demonstrates interest in
preserving the environment. Yet she does not understand that the financially
exploitive practices Lewis engages in to maintain their wealth is likely the
cause of its endangerment (71). Ultimately the sentimentality Mariah practices
in preferring her wealth to the conservation of the environment is itself a
product of the social influence exerted by the appropriation of technology. For
Mariah, the Earth is beautiful—something to be preserved. While all peoples
everywhere would agree with this, the Earth is more than an aesthetic object to
colonized populations. In fact, it is principally a technological entity, the
means of their subsistence, not an aesthetic artifact. Therefore, the means by
which true cultural exchange is prevented can be traced to its present state in
neo-colonialism.
A comprehensive investigation of the methods
used by colonizers, and sometimes colonized populations, to prevent a true
dialectical synthesis of self and other demonstrates that the re-invention of
racial identity, manipulation of history, division of labor, and appropriation
of technology are well evidenced types. Intertextual patterns of participation
by characters representing both colonizers and the colonized throughout the
course texts are considerable evidence. Tracing similarities of the methods to
uncover their affect on conceptions of personal difference and social influence
terminates in the realization that neo-imperialism is a consequence. While
rightly understood difference is essential for the process of synthesis to
occur, its abuses disadvantage both self and other. Colonizers and colonized
peoples suffer from preventions of cultural exchange. By working to recognize
the fundamental similarity of humanity present in every group and framing ideas
of difference in light of it, the personal aspect of difference can be redeemed.
While the social aspect is more difficult to restore because of its economic
associations, criticism of arbitrary or ill-conceived sentimentality may be a
start. Ultimately postcolonial studies as a whole must emphasize the necessity
of cooperation for a more successful future.
Intersectionality in Postcolonial
Feminism Research Paper Proposal
As an undergraduate I took a course in feminist philosophy
that was initially very interesting. We learned that in social theory the
feminine can be considered the quintessential other. Studying the relationships
between this otherness and society was fascinating, but the course eventually
began to dedicate a lot of its time to radical and liberal feminist thought,
which I found less interesting. I understand that postcolonial feminism is not
concerned with the radical and liberal trends that occupy mainstream Western
feminism. Questions of personal identity, first as self-contained issues of
ontology, then as matters of social categorization, seem to be better answered
by postcolonial feminists through their tradition of intersectionality. I
appreciate their methodology and would like to apply it to two texts in this
course.
Considering the identity-differences in Lucy and Jasmine as
embodiments of the social other, and as intersectional opposites themselves,
would be the general topic of my paper. The texts would lend themselves to
detailed feminist interpretation in several respects, but my experience in
Western feminism would probably translate successfully to allow for an
identity-relative criticism of patriarchy (or a more generic form of
relationship-dependence). A criticism of paternalism, or a combination of the
two, could possibly succeed. I could explore how Jasmine and Lucy, two
intersectionally diverse women, navigate similar networks of gender
discrimination both spatially and relationally. Lucy spends a great deal of time
experimenting sexually, as does Jasmine, but geographical travel is more
expansive in Jasmine. This alone offers a wider critical field to investigate.
What is the pattern of continuity in her relationships? How does her identity
evolve relative to its social constraints. I have yet to articulate a central
question to investigate, but I expect it would center on how the interpersonal
development of the women is influenced by their power-conditioned roles in
society. (Successive experiences with romantic partners and formative
experiences with parents providing these power-conditions.)
I can pin down my exact plan for the paper if you think that
a work in this direction on postcolonial feminism is appropriate for the course.
