POST COLONIALISM

DEFINITION OF POSTCOLONIAL CRITICISM A type of cultural criticism, postcolonial criticism usually in ol es t!e analysis of literary te"ts pro#uce# in countries an# cultures t!at !a e come un#er t!e control of European colonial po$ers at some point in t!eir !istory% Alternati ely, it can refer to t!e analysis of te"ts $ritten a&out coloni'e# places &y $riters !ailin( from t!e coloni'in( culture% In Orientalism )*+,-., E#$ar# Sai#, a pioneer of postcolonial criticism an# stu#ies, focuse# on t!e $ay in $!ic! t!e coloni'in( First /orl# !as in ente# false ima(es an# myt!s of t!e T!ir# )postcolonial. /orl#0stereotypical ima(es an# myt!s t!at !a e con eniently 1ustifie# /estern e"ploitation an# #omination of Eastern an# Mi##le Eastern cultures an# peoples% In t!e essay 2Postcolonial Criticism2 )*++3., 4omi 5% 6!a&!a !as s!o$n !o$ certain cultures )mis.represent ot!er cultures, t!ere&y e"ten#in( t!eir political an# social #omination in t!e mo#ern $orl# or#er% Postcolonial stu#ies, a type of cultural stu#ies, refers more &roa#ly to t!e stu#y of cultural (roups, practices, an# #iscourses0inclu#in( &ut not limite# to literary #iscourses0in t!e coloni'e# $orl#% T!e term postcolonial is usually use# &roa#ly to refer to t!e stu#y of $or7s $ritten at any point after coloni'ation first occurre# in a (i en country, alt!ou(! it is sometimes use# more specifically to refer to t!e analysis of te"ts an# ot!er cultural #iscourses t!at emer(e# after t!e en# of t!e colonial perio# )after t!e success of t!e li&eration an# in#epen#ence mo ements.% Amon( feminist critics, t!e postcolonial perspecti e !as inspire# an attempt to reco er $!ole cultures of $omen !eretofore i(nore# or mar(inali'e#0$omen $!o spea7 not only from coloni'e# places &ut also from t!e coloni'in( places to $!ic! many of t!em fle#% Postcolonial criticism !as &een influence# &y Mar"ist t!ou(!t, &y t!e $or7 of Mic!el Foucault )$!ose t!eories a&out t!e po$er of #iscourses !a e influence# t!e ne$ !istoricism., an# &y #econstruction, $!ic! !as c!allen(e# not only !ierarc!ical, &inary oppositions suc! as /est8East an# Nort!8Sout! &ut also t!e notions of superiority associate# $it! t!e first term of eac! opposition%

!ttp988isre ie$%or(8issue8-+8mar"ism:postcolonial:stu#ies:an#:tas7s:ra#ical:t!eory

International Socialist Re ie$, Issue ;-+

Marxism, postcolonial studies, and the tasks of radical theory
i!ek Chi""er inter!ie#ed "y $ason %ar"man

OVER THE past few decades postcolonial theory has risen to prominence in the academy, becoming the dominant intellectual current of self-identified radicals. Drawing from poststructural currents, early postcolonial theory emerged from literature told from the point of iew of the coloni!ed. "hat originated as a response to the cultural legacies of colonialism and imperialism e entually became cultural theory, which insisted that attributing to coloni!ed peoples the ways European colonialists understood the world was a form of coloni!ation. #uch of postcolonial theory argues that the concepts of "estern social theory are inapplicable outside of Europe$ that pro%ecting European thought and history onto the rest of the world ignores the real history of the world outside the "est. #uch of this wor& has put #ar'ism and #ar'ists in the crosshairs, holding it as %ust another form of Eurocentric thought, incapable of analy!ing or contributing to the liberation of postcolonial societies. (n Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital Vi e& )hibber ta&es up these claims and systematically criti*ues what has to this point become accepted wisdom for a large section of the academic left. Jason Farbman spo&e with Vivek Chibber, an associate professor of +ociology at ,ew -or& .ni ersity, about #ar'ism and postcolonial theory, their different approaches to e'plaining capitalism and anti-capitalist strategy, engaging with the nonwestern world, and the role of radical intellectuals.

WHY SHOULD socialists care about postcolonial stu ies! (, THE last twenty to twenty-fi e years, postcolonial theory has ta&en its place as the replacement for #ar'ist theory in uni ersity settings and among intellectuals. Throughout the twentieth century, #ar'ism was the theory that socialists relied upon to e'plain the world,

and to ma&e sense of how to organi!e against capitalism. "ith the fall of the +o iet .nion and the decline of mo ements, with #ar'ism becoming marginal in intellectual life, and with a socialist left being &ic&ed out of the labor mo ement, this is the first time in the modern era when you find an absence of #ar'ist intellectuals both within the labor mo ement and within the intelligentsia. "hat/s ta&en its place now is postcolonial theory, which purports to do two things0 to e'plain how capitalism wor&s, and to critici!e the in%ustices of capitalism. +ocialists ha e a lot at sta&e in putting that theory to the test and seeing whether it/s worthwhile or not. YOU" #$W book, Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, o%%ers harsh criticisms o% postcolonial theor&' Wh& o &ou think it %alls short as a ra ical theor&! (/# )R(T()12 because postcolonial theory tries to do what #ar'ism does, which is both to e'plain the world and tell us how to change it. ( thin& it fails in both those respects. (n terms of e'plaining the world, e en though the theory tal&s about capitalism a lot, it/s conception of capitalism is one that either obscures how it wor&s or presents a mythologi!ed, saniti!ed ersion of it. The &ind of ersion the bourgeois apologists tend to put forward. "ith regard to its role as a critical theory$ well, first of all, as #ar' said, you can/t critici!e something if you don/t understand it. (f they don/t understand how capitalism wor&s, they can/t really help us critici!e it. 3ostcolonial theory presents itself as being not %ust anticapitalist, but antiimperialist and anticolonial. (n fact, as ( show in my boo&, it/s a theory that resurrected and made respectable what we now call orientalism4that is, ideas that the East is different from the "est in some deep, unchanging way. (n my iew, the theory not only fails, but has some pretty conser ati e implications. (OS)COLO#*+L )H$O"*S)S o%ten critici,e the -universalism. o% /ar0ism' What o the& mean b& that! +O)(12(+T+ H1VE always held on to the belief that capitalism4where er it is4submits people to what #ar' called 5the dull compulsion6 of economic relations. (t forces people into highly e'ploitati e relations$ and it does so regardless of their culture, their bac&ground. 1ll it is interested in is profits. +o as capitalism spreads around the world, it spreads these properties into e ery community, e ery culture, e ery society. )apitalism doesn/t care if those societies are Hindu, #uslim, or )hristian. (n so doing it submits the entire world to one set of structural and economic forces 4the same forces. 1nd it brings the entire world into a common struggle against those forces. 3ostcolonial theory often denies this. (t often insists that when capitalism is implanting itself in )alcutta, or in ,airobi, you can/t understand it the way you understand the capitalism in Detroit or #anchester. -ou need an entirely different theory, a theory that loo&s nothing li&e what #ar'/s theory was. "ell, o&ay, maybe you do. +o what is that theory7 WH+) IS that theor&! What o postcolonial theorists propose as a replacement!

( H1VE,/T seen them pro ide one. The argument is typically pitched in the negati e4to the effect that e'isting theories ha e to be rethought. 8ut what the alternati e theory is, about how capitalism actually wor&s, is hard to find. 1U) *)2S not har to observe clear cultural i%%erences in various parts o% the 3orl ' Ho3 o 3e account %or these i%%erences! "E )1, admit what is clearly true0 that most people are go erned by their habits, by norms, by custom, by others/ e'pectations of them, in much of what they do. That amounts to admitting that sociali!ation and cultural orientation ha e a huge bearing on people/s choices and beha ior. ( don/t wish to dispute that at all. 1nd if that is what postcolonial theorists claimed, one would ha e no disagreement with them. 8ut their claim is stronger. (t is not that people are influenced by their culture$ their claim is that people are constituted by their culture4all the way down. That means their sociali!ation is so strong, their culture and cultural indoctrination so o erriding, that it can e en erase their understanding of their basic needs and interests, li&e the importance of physical well-being or indi idual harm. There/s a lot at sta&e in accepting this. (f it is true, there is a lot that goes out the window, li&e any conception of human rights. HOW DO &ou 4et %rom e0planations base on culture to the impossibilit& o% human ri4hts! -O. )1,,OT assign rights if you don/t ha e interests. )ulture has a lot of importance. 8ut is it so important that it can get people to ignore their own well-being7 (f the cultural relati ism of postcolonial studies is right, it undermines our moti ation to oppose the e'propriation of peasants in 8oli ia, the e'ploitation of wor&ers in ,igeria, the immiseration of ric&shaw dri ers in )alcutta. 8ecause for all you &now their cultures might alue these things, thin& these things are good for them. "ho ga e you the right to say that these things are bad7 On what grounds would you say they would e er oppose them7 +#D )H*S is istinctl& i%%erent than socialist theor&! +O)(12(+T+, 12O,9 with saying that capitalism submits the whole world to a common set of forces, ha e also held that wor&ing people all around the world ha e a common interest against capitalism. 1gain, regardless of whether they are Hindu, #uslim or )hristian, or 8lac& or white. Regardless of these ma&eups, they all ha e certain common interests. 1nd that/s why the struggle against capitalism is an international and uni ersal struggle. Here too, postcolonial theory often undermines this. (ts calling card has been to say that laboring people in non-western societies are not moti ated by the same concerns as those in the "est$ they don/t e en thin& in terms of their interests. They ha e a whole different consciousness than people in the "est do. This is ery reminiscent of what coloni!ing and imperial countries said when they denied rights to 1sians and to 1fricans. )H$"$ *S an important istinction bet3een the 3a& /ar0ism an postcolonial stu ies theori,es i%%erence' What2s at stake here!

"H1T/+ 1T sta&e is whether we thin& that when a wor&er or a poor person is bossed around in )alcutta, that he has the right to the same grie ances and redress that somebody in #anchester or Detroit does. That when a woman in ,igeria is the ictim of gender oppression she ought to ha e the same recourse as a woman in 2os 1ngeles. (t comes down to this0 (f you thin& people in post-colonial cultures deser e the same rights as people in rich countries do, you can only ma&e that argument if you also belie e they ha e the same needs and interests as the latter. To deny this is to insist that Easterners and "esterners li e in different worlds. +uch a theory can/t possibly sustain and support international mo ements and internationalism within the wor&ing class. +"$ YOU sa&in4 there2s no i%%erence bet3een the $ast an the West! ,O: (, fact the differences between them are huge, and what/s interesting is that the #ar'ist tradition from at least ;<=> has been dedicated to nothing other than e'plaining those differences. )H$ CL+*/ ma e b& postcolonial theorists5to the point o% becomin4 common sense in some corners5is that /ar0ism is $urocentric' )hat /ar0ism %ocuses on $uropean culture or histor& to the e0clusion o% the non3estern 3orl , or attempts to superimpose -$uropean. theories onto the non3estern 3orl ' TH(+ (+ sort of what sets postcolonial theory apart from other radicalisms. 1cross the twentieth century, in most of what we now call the global +outh, people who were on the left and who were progressi es too& #ar'ism to be a natural framewor& for them to engage. +ome of them re%ected it, a lot of them accepted it, but the ones who re%ected it didn/t do so because it was 5"estern6 or 5Eurocentric.6 they %ust thought it was wrong. 3ostcolonial theory is the first theory claiming to be anticapitalist, from the global +outh, that attac&s #ar'ism as being no different from colonial ideology in that it is as Eurocentric as colonial ideology was. This is an unusual claim$ it is also false. )H*S *S 4reat ne3s %or &oun4 /ar0ists 3ho2ve been bombar e b& accusations o% $urocentricism' Can &ou elaborate! (? -O. loo& at the history of #ar'ism in the twentieth century, it/s actually a history of an unceasing engagement with the realities of the nonwestern world. (f you thin& about it, how could it be otherwise7 +tarting with the re olution in Russia in ;<=>, the e'perience of socialism in the twentieth century has been that the countries where re olutionary mo ements became the most powerful oftentimes were countries that were not ad anced capitalist. There/s Russia ;<=>$ 9ermany @which was an industriali!ing but still predominantly peasant countryA in ;<;B$ )hina in the ;<C=s$ (ndia in the ;<C=s$ 2atin 1merican in the ;<D=s and >=s$ Vietnam$ the entire spectrum of decoloni!ing countries. E erywhere mo ements too& off which had a powerful anticapitalist thrust, they were in the nonwestern and less-de eloped world. (t was of necessity then, that the leaders of these mo ements and the intellectuals associated with them, had to ma&e sense of realities that didn/t conform to the central pillars of #ar'ist theory. (t is true that #ar' de eloped his theory focusing on the most ad anced countries.

8ut throughout the twentieth century, as re olutionary mo ements too& off in less-de eloped countries, #ar'ists right from the start had to try and modify the theory to ma&e sense of realities that departed from the predictions of the theory. (n fact, #ar'ism is the only theory on the left that has relentlessly and unceasingly engaged with the nonwestern world. The idea that it is a theory that ignores the nonwest or that it imposes western categories artificially, or that it is blind to the realities of the nonwestern world, is pretty far-fetched. )H*S CO#C$()*O# o% /ar0ism is so i%%erent %rom ho3 3e2re constantl& tol it is' Can &ou 4ive some e0amples o% a -relentless an unceasin4 en4a4ement 3ith the non3estern 3orl .! "H1T (+ Trots&y/s theory of combined and une en de elopment7 (t/s a theory about what happens when capitalism comes late to a less-de eloped country. "hat is #ao/s theory of new democracy7 ,ow you may agree or disagree with it, but it/s a theory about what to do in a peasant country. "hat was 2enin/s first contribution to #ar'ist theory, before anything else7 (t was a theory of late-de eloping capitalism in his first boo&, The Development of Capitalism in Russia. "hat is 2enin/s ma%or contribution to agrarian sociology7 (t/s his theory of classes within agrarian capitalism, which #ao de eloped. "hat was 1milcar )abral/s contribution to re olutionary theory7 (t was the notion of the re olutionary proletariat in bac&wards settings. "hat about )he 9ue ara7 Or "alter Rodney/s pathbrea&ing wor& on colonial 1frica, or ).2.R Eames/ analysis of the 8lac& Eacobins7 These were all attempts to concreti!e and modify #ar'ist theories in the +outh. "hat is odd is that people li&e Rodney and Eames are now being presented as post-colonial theorists. That/s really *uite wrong. They thought of themsel es as belonging to the #ar'ist tradition. One can %ust add to this list unceasingly. ?rom as early as ;<=> to as late as the ;<B=s, if there was one thing #ar'ists ha e done, it is to focus on the nonwestern world. *F CL+*/S o% $urocentricism are so baseless, 3h& o postcolonial theorists accuse /ar0ism o% this all the time! (T/+ )REDE,T(12 building. (f you want to establish yourself as a radical in academia, and you don/t want any of the hits to your career that come with being a 5#ar'ist,6 the first thing you ha e to do is say something negati e about #ar'ism. (t establishes that e en though you/re on the left you/re not 5one of them.6 SO /+"6*S)S have nothin4 to be embarrasse about on this score! (T/+ EF1)T2- the opposite. (f what (/m saying is right, then the reality is that some of the most important insights into the moderni!ation of the global south ha e come out of #ar'ist theories or theories inspired by #ar'ism. (n the ;<>=s and G=s e en the mainstream theories that were coming out, trying to e'plain de elopment, political moderni!ation, they all drew upon #ar'/s theories e en if they weren/t themsel es #ar'ists. 1le'ander 9erschen&ron/s theory$ 1lbert ?ishlow/s wor& on 2atin 1merica$ 1lbert Hirschman/s wor&, all these people were drawing on #ar'ist theory. That was true into the ;<B=s.

The theories they generated might ha e been wrong, but all of these intellectuals were dedicated to as&ing the *uestion, 5How do you e'plain the di ergent e'periences of the East and "est76 The accusation that a commitment to uni ersali!ing theories blinds you to social difference is %ust false. ,ot only is there nothing to be embarrassed about, #ar'ists should in fact turn the tables. (n settings when you/re in a political debate or in a seminar or something and someone tries to ma&e these accusations, %ust as& them what they ma&e of all these half do!en to a do!en theoretical contributions that came out of the #ar'ist tradition. 1s& them to e'plain e'actly 4e'actly4how they/re Eurocentric. +S YOU pointe out earlier, %or most o% the mo ern era /ar0ism 3as the rivin4 %orce in ra ical intellectual thou4ht' Ho3 o &ou e0plain its isappearance over the past t3o or three eca es! THE D(+133E1R1,)E of #ar'ism is not that hard to e'plain. #ar'ism was only around as long as #ar'ist parties and an organi!ed, anticapitalist layer of the wor&ing class was around. The defeats of the past twenty-fi e years are unprecedented in modern history0 there was ne er a time when there wasn/t a really powerful current of socialists within the wor&ing class, where there were not parties that at least in their rhetoric were anticapitalist. ,ow we ha e neither. (n a situation li&e that, it/s %ust not ery realistic that #ar'ism as an intellectual current would sur i e. Once you ta&e #ar'ist intellectuals out of the labor mo ement, the only institution that/s left that might be creating intellectual wor& is the uni ersity. .ni ersities are %ust not a hospitable place for #ar'ism. .ni ersities are places where upwardly mobile professionals do what they ha e to do to mo e up on the career ladder. They are middle class, and they ha e the same aspirations as any middle-class person. #ostly, they succeed if they fall into line with power and power structures. +o you/re going to find a downsi!ingHdownscaling of #ar'ists in the intellectual world once they are ta&en out of the labor mo ement, and once anticapitalist political parties become as tiny as they are right now. WH$"$ DO$S postcolonial theor& come %rom! TH1T/+ 1 good *uestion. "hat you could ha e had once #ar'ism declined was %ust liberalism and conser atism, a return to those two doctrines. "hy do you get something li&e postcolonial theory7 ( thin& you get it for two reasons. One is the aging lefties from the ;<G=s, who ga e up being anticapitalist, still saw themsel es as radicals. 1nd still do. +tarting from the late ;<B=s and early ;<<=s, they/re radicals, but they don/t want to tal& about capitalism. +o they turn towards other issues. They/re antiracist, antise'ist. They turn to what/s called oppression studies. +econdly, uni ersities ha e changed a lot. They/re a lot more heterogeneous, a lot more di erse than they used to be. +tudents coming into those uni ersities are ery &een on ha ing the same chances as students who are more pri ileged. 1 lot of the students in these uni ersities face difficulties because of the se'ism and racism they encounter. +o there/s a supply factor pushing towards oppression studies, but without any attention to capitalism.

1nd there/s a demand factor, from these students who want to understand why they don/t fit in as well with the other &ids and why they don/t ha e the same chances. "hat/s left out of this whole e*uation is the issue of capitalism, precisely because in uni ersities you ha e people who are either themsel es upwardly mobile and comfortable li&e professors or who aspire to be upwardly mobile, li&e most of the students. "hat you get, therefore, is a setting in which you/re going to ha e people interested in being critical of the dominant order but without being anticapitalist. 1nd that/s what postcolonial theory gi es you. YOU ("$S$#) a prett& amnin4 account o% postcolonial theor&' Have postcolonial theorists ma e an& positive contributions! -E+, THERE/+ some positi e wor& empirically. 1nd they ha e &ept ali e the idea that colonialism was highly destructi e and generated a baleful ideology. 8ut when we turn to the culture of the 2eft, ( thin& postcolonial theory has been ery debilitating. "hat is the mission of any radical intellectual7 8y 5intellectual6 ( don/t mean someone who wor&s in a uni ersity and has a pointy head. 1n intellectual is %ust someone who helps articulate ideas. 3rofessors sometimes do that. They usually don/t. 8ut organi!ers always do. "ithout fail. (f you can/t do that you/re not an organi!er. How has postcolonial studies affected the culture of intellectual wor& in the way (/ e %ust defined it7 (t/s been pretty negati e. 3ostcolonial studies has imbibed some of the worst aspects of academic culture, because it/s a product of the academy. (t is not a product of mo ements. They say they are a product of mo ements and are lin&ed up to them, but that is not true. 3ostcolonial studies comes right out of the academy. "hat it has internali!ed and spread across the left is a culture in which aluing a simple and direct and clear presentation of ideas has simply been pushed off the table. WHY *S this! (, 1)1DE#(1, a simple and clear presentation of ideas oftentimes is the best way to get yourself booted out. (t/s easier to critici!e you when you/re clear, and concise, and you present your iews in a way that ma&es them amenable to criticism. 1cademics oftentimes couch their ideas in impenetrable prose, indecipherable %argon, at a le el of comple'ity that is so dense nobody can penetrate it. This often is a substitute for comple'ity of thought. "hat you get with postcolonial studies is comple'ity of e'pression substituting for comple'ity of thought. *F YOU" 4oal is to or4ani,e mass numbers o% 3orkin4 people, a strate4& that presents simple i eas in con%oun in4 3a&s seems counterpro uctive' H(+TOR()122- O, the left, intellectuals always too& it as their duty to ta&e comple' matters and present them in a simple and clear way. That/s how you organi!e people. The reality of capitalism seems to be o erwhelming and complicated, which people from the Right &eep saying is not accessible to ordinary people. They insist you need e'perts to understand the world and should therefore lea e the go erning of society to managers and e'perts. The Right has always said that. (ntellectuals of the 2eft ha e always tried to show

that in fact, realities can be grasped by anybody with a reasonable intelligence, whether or not they are in college, as long as they thin& hard about it. 1nd they/ e tried to e'emplify that by ta&ing highly comple' ideas and ma&ing them simple. ,oam )homs&y li&es to say that bac& in the ;<C=s, )ommunist intellectuals wrote boo&s li&e Mathematics for the Millions and Physics Made Simple. That was a good e'pression of the mission that intellectuals saw themsel es on when they were on the 2eft. "hat postcolonial studies has done is re erse this. -ou could forgi e all of its sins, all of its intellectual mista&es. -ou could forgi e all of its grandstanding and its ignorance about what radical theory does. 8ut what you cannot forgi e is importing into the culture of the 2eft the pretentious, empty erbosity that you find in the seminar room. 1nd it/s really in the last twenty years that you/ e seen acti ist meetings turning into graduate student seminars. ( thin& it/s pretty destructi e. WH+) *S the outcome 3hen activist meetin4s turn into 4ra uate seminars! (T T1IE+ confidence away from acti ists. (t allows a few people to dominate meetings. Typically its people who don/t fully understand what they/ e said, but who really en%oy dominating meetings. 1nd of course it dri es sensible people out of acti ism. The people who are left are people who either don/t mind this spea&ing in tongues or people who care so little about understanding the world they don/t care about what the discourse is that/s being presented to them. (magine what this does to the culture of the 2eft. (OS)COLO#*+L )H$O"Y is no3 3ell establishe in the aca em&' What are the prospects o% repellin4 these attacks on /ar0ism, or at least chippin4 a3a& at some o% the more pernicious assumptions ma e commonsense b& postcolonial theor&! (? -O. loo& bac& o er the last twenty-fi e to thirty years, this is probably the best time to push bac& against some of the silliness and obscurantism that has been propagated by postcolonial theory. ( say this for a couple of reasons. One is the economic crisis that swept across the world starting in J==K. (t brought the concept of capitalism bac& into political debates. E erybody now understands two things0 we/re li ing in a world in which the structural compulsion of capitalism is still the dri ing force$ and that its global, because it wasn/t %ust the .+ or )hina or 9ermany or 9reece that got caught in this maelstrom but it was the entire world. (t/s shown in a ery star& way that the category of capitalism that postcolonial theory has done so much to obscure or ma&e in isible, that it/s still a real force in the world around us. The second reason ( thin& it/s a good time is because of the massi e mobili!ations and social struggle that ha e erupted o er the past few years. 1gain, all around the world, showing that it/s not %ust that capitalism is a reality across the world but also our common humanity and our common interest in fighting against it. (f postcolonial theory was right, there should not ha e been the e'plosion in Egypt, in Tahrir +*uare, that there was a year and a half ago. (f it were right, e en if there was an e'plosion they should not ha e been demanding %obs, butter, democracy, these basic things that wor&ers in the "est do. 1nd if postcolonial theory were right, it should not be the case that acti ists in #adison and Detroit, or in Occupy, ta&e inspiration from acti ists in )airo, and come

together on the same demands. 8ecause if postcolonial theory were right, they should ha e fundamentally different psychologies, different aspirations, different needs. "hat these mo ements ha e shown us is that the needs and aspirations, e en though they might ha e some differences, also share certain crucial commonalities. +o ( thin& that this is the best time we/ e seen in some time. WH+) DO &ou think it 3ill take be%ore 3e see the assumptions o% postcolonial theor& in retreat! ( DO,/T thin& postcolonial theory is going to go away any time soon. Despite the global upsurge we/re still in a period of irtually unchallenged bourgeois hegemony. (n fact the Right is getting stronger, not wea&er, as we spea&. 1lso, within academia, the retreat of #ar'ism is complete. (f you were to loo& at postcolonial theory and its chances for stic&ing around, %ust based on its attracti eness to academics. . . "ell, ( don/t thin& there/s e er been a theory which is tailor-made for academic grandstanding the way postcolonial theory is. (t will ta&e social mo ements of the scale that we saw in the late ;<G=s and early ;<K=s and a resurgence of some &ind of left anticapitalist political organi!ation that becomes a mass organi!ation. (t/ll ta&e something of that weight and scale to draw professional academics bac& towards #ar'ism in anything li&e a mass scale. -ou/ll ha e indi iduals here and there, but ( thin& it/s going to ta&e a lot of wor&. ,ow there is an opening. 1nd ( thin& the best thing we can do is to try to ta&e ad antage of that opening, but with a sober appreciation of what the reality is.

!ttp988$$$%soli#arity:us%or(8site8no#e8*,-*

The Limits of Postcolonial Criticism& The 'iscourse of (d#ard Said

E. San Juan, Jr.
O,E O? THE fundamental disco eries of #ar'ist historiography is that capitalism as a world system has de eloped une enly, with the operations of the 5free mar&et6 determined by unplanned but @after analysisA 5lawful6 tendencies of accumulation of surplus alue. "ith the rise of merchant capitalism, di erse modes of production with arying temporalities and 5superstructural6 effects ha e since then reconfigured the planet. (n a new cartography, we find metropolitan centers subordinating peripheral territories and peoples. )olonialism and later finance-capitalism @imperialismA compressed time and space, sharply %u'taposing a ariety of cultures lin&ed to discrepant economies and polities, with the coloni!ing center dictating the measure of modernity. 1fter "orld "ar ((, the accelerated migration of former colonial sub%ects into the metropoles, together with the refinement of technologies of communication and foreign in estment, heightened the spectacle of heterogeneous languages and mi'ed practices coe'isting with the homogeni!ing scenarios of e eryday life in both center and margin. ( consider postcolonialism as the cultural logic of this mi'ture and multilayering of forms ta&en as an essential ethos of late modernity, a logic distanced from its grounding in the unsynchroni!ed interaction between colonial powers and coloni!ed subalterns. The (ndo-8ritish critic Homi 8habha, among others, has gi en ontological priority to the phenomenon of cultural difference between coloni!ed and coloni!er. The articulation of such difference in 5in-between6 places produces hybridi!ation of identities0 5(t is in the emergence of the interstices4the o erlap and displacement of domains of difference4that the intersub%ecti e and collecti e e'periences of nationness, community interest, or cultural alue are negotiated6 @8habha ;<<D, ;-JA. +ince @following "allerstein ;<<;A capital ethnici!es peoples to promote labor segmentation, hybridity and other differential phenomena result. 8ut for 8habha, ambi alence arises from the poststructuralist 5difference of writing6 that informs any cultural performance. +uch performances are found in certain pri ileged positionalities and e'periences0 5the history of postcolonial migration, the narrati es of cultural and political diaspora, the ma%or social displacements of peasants and aboriginal communities, the poetics of e'ile, the grim prose of political and economic refugees.6 @>A 1le' )allinicos calls 8habhaLs approach 5an idealist reduction of the social to the semiotic.6 @;<<>0 ;;;A (ndeterminacy, interruption of the signifying chain, aporia, endless displacements, translations, and negotiations characteri!e postcolonial literary theory and practice. 1i%a! 1hmad @;<<GA points to the ambiguity of historical references in postcolonial discourse. (n the discursi e realm of floating signifiers and the language metaphor, the ob%ecti e asymmetry of power and resources between hegemonic blocs and subaltern groups @raciali!ed minorities in the metropoles and in the 5third world6A disappears, as well as the attendant conflicts.

)learly this fi'ation on the manifestations of 5une enness6 has undergone fetishi!ation, di orced from its concrete social determinations. "hat postcolonial theory @8habhaLs practice is replicated in 9ayatri )ha&ra orty +pi a&, Trinh #inh-ha, and othersA seems to carry out in the name of indi idualist resistance is the alori!ation of reified immediacies4the symptomatic effects of coloni!ation in arious forms of 5orientalisms6 and strategies of adaptations and cooptations4unconnected with the institutions and instrumentalities that subtend them. Viewed from the perspecti e of late-capitalist political economy, the figures of difference, fragmentation, liminality and diaspora, which 2awrence 9rossberg @;<<GA considers the principles of identity for postmodern cultural studies @of which postcolonialism is a subspeciesA, are modes of regulating the social relations of production, in particular the di ision of global social labor and its reproduction. 8ut postcolonial critics not only remo e these principles of identity from their circumstantial ground, from their historical conte'ts$ they also treat them as autonomous phenomena separate from the structures of cultural production and political legitimation in late modern societies. (n the ?rench philosopher Henri 2efeb reLs words, 5Each of these MmomentsL of the real Ni.e. hybridity, fragmentation, etc.O, once isolated and hypostati!ed, becomes the negator of the other moments and then the negator of itself. 2imited and transposed into a form, the content becomes oppressi e and destructi e of its own reality.6 @;<GB0 ;GKA 3ostcolonialism is guilty of what it claims to repudiate0 mystification and moralism. "hat postcolonialism ultimately tries to do is to reify certain transitory practices, styles, modalities of thought and e'pression that arise as attempts to resol e specific historical contradictions in the ongoing crisis of late, transnational capitalism. )ultural difference is the single ambi alent result of colonialism that can be articulated in plural ways. .ne enness is no longer an abstract categori!ing term, but an empirical onesided description that affords the subalternLs newly-disco ered agency some space for the display of libertarian astuteness. "hat the #ar'ist theoretician 9eorg 2u&acs @;<K;A calls 5ethical utopianism,6 the lapse into sub%ecti ism, afflicts postcolonial theory because it denies the internally comple' determinants that are its condition of possibility. This mediation of the hybrid, interstitial and borderline e'perience with the concrete totality of the social formation is re%ected as 5essentialism6 or 5totali!ation6 @+an Euan ;<<BA. (nstead of in*uiring further into the poststructuralist mystification of what Da id Har ey @;<<GA calls the contemporary 5geography of difference6 configured by a comple' dialectic of flows and permanences, ( would li&e to comment briefly on Edward +aidLs Culture and Imperialism @;<<DA, in particular the refusal of the historical-materialist framewor& and its subse*uent lapse into 5ethical utopianism.6 9i en his influential wor& Orientalism @;<KBA, +aid deser es to be called the originator and inspiring patron-saint of postcolonial theory and discourse. References to him abound in the writings of +pi a&, 8habha, #ohanty, and others. The anti-#ar'ism of postcolonial theory may be attributed partly to +aidLs eclecticism, his belief that 1merican left criticism is marginal, and his distorted if not wholly false

understanding of #ar'ism based on doctrinaire anticommunism and the model of 5actually e'isting socialism6 during the )old "ar. (t is somewhat surprising that the 8ritish scholar ?rancis #ulhern would include in a recent anthology +aidLs essay on Eane 1usten as an e'ample of #ar'ist literary criticism, e en though its inferred 5moral geography6 supposedly 5reinserts the humane traditions of English culture in their ambiguous role in the unfolding of 8ritainLs colonial history.6 @;<<J0 <KA To be sure, +aid has contributed to the salutary re isions of the ulgar or dogmatic #ar'ism that ?redric Eameson, 1lan "ald, Terry Eagleton and others ha e critici!ed. 8ut +aid is certainly not re itali!ing historical materialism for re olutionary socialist goals. #any other critics, especially 1i%a! 1hmad, ha e pointed out the wea&nesses and lacunae in +aidLs interpretation and rather opportunistic use of classical #ar'ism. ( thin& this opportunistic *uoting, e'cerpting and to&eni!ing of #ar'ist thin&ers by postcolonial orthodo'y may e'plain its reputed radicalism. This putati e solidarity, according to fellowtra ellers, gi es postcolonial criticism a sanction to condemn #ar'ismLs systemic reductionism and other e'cesses @usually, of course, attributed to e'-+o iet .nion dogmatismA under the guise of sympathy and &nowledgeability about it. ( am reminded of a former colleague who, in the si'ties, always warned me to beware of #ar'ists because he had been a Trots&yist in the forties. The sociologist 8ryan Turner also reminds us of +aidLs adoption of a deconstructi e strategy deri ed from #ichel ?oucault and #artin Heidegger, whose anti-#ar'ism needs no elaboration. ,ot only romantic anarchism but a hermeneutic sub%ecti ism whose te'tualism confuses 5the materiality of social relations with an alleged materiality of the conte't6 has generated in +aidLs early wor& a 5 icious solipsism.6 @Turner ;<<D0 KA 1lluding to comments of #a'ime Rodinson and +ade& Ealal el-1!m, +amir 1min @;<B<A has also remar&ed on +aidLs pro incialism and its inability to e'plain the historical causality of Eurocentric pre%udice. (n Culture and Imperialism, +aid uses 9ramsci and ).2.R. Eames, among others in the #ar'ist tradition, to gi e an aura of leftism to his te't. 9ramsci is referred to in connection with an intellectual ocation, with -eatsL poetry, with the (ndian +ubaltern +tudies. 8ut it is in the way +aid appropriates and refunctions 9ramsciLs notion of hegemony that is symptomatic of a syncreti!ing, cooptati e pro%ect. +aid first demarcates 9ramsci from 2u&acs$ the latter belongs to the Hegelian tradition, 9ramsci to the 5Vichian, )rocean departure from it6 @D<A so that 2u&acs attends more to temporality, while 9ramsci to social history and actuality grasped in geographical terms. This is said to be e idenced by 9ramsciLs use of such words as 5terrain,6 5territory, 5 bloc&s6 and 5region,6 in his essay Some Aspects of the Southern Question. 8ut ob iously 9ramsciLs concept of space is precisely historici!ed to those places in +outhern (taly left out of the main capitalist trend of industriali!ation because of the stranglehold of the landlord class and its traditional intellectuals li&e )roce. (n my iew, 9ramsciLs conceptuali!ation of topography is historical, not %ust temporal$ the meridional en ironment

is such because of the political subordination of the agrarian economy to the financial power of the (talian bourgeoisie in the ,orth, not because of mere cultural bac&wardness. The problem 9ramsci is grappling with in that te't is the wor&erist sectarianism of the (talian socialist party$ he is proposing a united-front policy in which the proletariat will demonstrate its hegemonic capacity by incorporating the demands and needs of the peasantry into its national-popular program of action. The prere*uisite for this is the recognition of the historically une en de elopment of the (talian social formation. (n short, profoundly conscious of une en capitalist de elopment, 9ramsci posits the tas& of #ar'ist intellectuals as a systematic attempt to propagate the philosophy of pra'is, #ar'ism, on the terrain where cosmopolitan bourgeois ideas supported by the )atholic )hurch are dominant. The organic intellectual of the proletariat would assume this pedagogical and agitational role, helping to integrate the (talian +outh with the national-popular agenda of the leading class, the proletariat. 1nalogies to dependency theory or to "allersteinLs world-system paradigm of center-periphery may not be *uite appropriate. (nstead of historici!ing the problematic of geopolitical discordance, +aid hypostati!es it and, contrary to his initial proposition, focuses on the temporal @in effect, e'istentialA dimension of cultural progress. 8ut what is re ealing is +aidLs enlargement of the intellectualLs role which, in retrospect, anticipates that reser ed for the postcolonial mediator0
<ramsci also un#erstan#s t!at in t!e e"ten#e# time span #urin( $!ic! t!e coral:li7e formation of a culture occurs, one nee#s =&rea7s of an or(anic 7in#%> <o&etti represents one suc! &rea7, a fissure t!at opene# up $it!in t!e cultural structures t!at supporte# an# occlu#e# t!e nort!:sout! #iscrepancy for so lon( in Italian !istory% )*++?9 @A.

"hat distinguishes 9ramsciLs intellectuals is that they are class-rooted and uni ersali!ing in their moti ation, whereas the postcolonial intellectual resembles more the declassed intellectual of the metropolitan literary circles. The 59obetti factor,6 that is, the intellectual who @in +aidLs wordsA 5furnishes the lin& between disparate, apparently autonomous regions of human history,6 is the model of the postcolonial, diasporic intellectual who will lin& comparati e literature and imperial geography, harmoni!ing alterities and flattening out contradictions. "hat has happened here is typical of +aidLs methodology. The ocation of the postcolonial intellectual as middleman-facilitator of coloni!ed subalterns and "estern imperial power is thus legitimi!ed by the illicit subsumption, if not per ersion, of 9ramsciLs idea of how partisan #ar'ist intellectuals can wor& to promote the wor&er-peasant alliance within an allencompassing program of socialist transformation. +aidLs circumstantial and secular intelligence ascribes a 5spatial consciousness6 to 9ramsciLs reading of the 5+outhern *uestion6 in order to 5reinterpret the "estern cultural archi e as if fractured geographically by the acti ated imperial di ide.6 @>=A 8ut instead of calling for a united front of the "estern proletariat and the 5peasantry6 of the 5third world,6 +aid re erts to an academic e'ercise in contrapuntal reading of the "estern cultural archi e.

(n short, 9ramsciLs insight can rationali!e the academic business of interpreting English no els in the conte't of 5the specific history of coloni!ation, resistance, and finally nati e nationalism,6 without *uestioning the ideological and political framewor& of the e'pansi e, reformist imperial archi e. +aidLs 5solidarity6 with #ar'ism consists then in selecti e deployment of concepts to ad ance a deconstructi e brief. (n Orientalism for e'ample, he cites 9ramsciLs distinction between ci il and political society in which culture, located in ci il society, is ta&en as the chief instrument for inducing consent and therefore hegemony. The state disappears since hegemony becomes culturali!ed. )ulture di orced from political economy offers then the framewor& of intelligibility for understanding the social di ision of labor, property relations, and the power structure. (n%ustice and e'ploitation are thus occluded. (n The !orld the Te"t and the Critic, +aid con erts 9ramsci into a philosophical idealist, a pluralist who assigns culture to 5some large intellectual endea or4systems and currents of thought4connected in comple' ways to doing things, to accomplishing certain things, to force, to social class and economic production, to diffusing ideas, alues, and world pictures.6 @;<BC0 ;K=A 9ramsci, for +aid, pri ileges intellectual elaboration as 5the central cultural acti ity,6 as 5the material ma&ing a society a society.6 @;K;A The strength of "estern culture, based on 5its ariety, its heterogeneous plurality,6 accounts for 5the strength of the modern "estern +tate.6 @;K;A (n effect, +aid has made 9ramsci a disciple of )roce and Hegel. ( argue that for 9ramsci hegemony cannot be reduced to the domain of culture or superstructure that guarantees the reproduction of the social relations, the state, and e erything else. 1ll relations of social forces are conditioned by the material contradictions in the social formation. The hegemonic apparatus of state plus ci il society in 9ramsci should be grasped within a framewor& of totality, as rendered by the ?rench scholar )hristine 8uci9luc&smann0
t!e !e(emonic apparatus turns out to &e a constituti e part of t!e relations of pro#uction as =i#eolo(ical social> relations, in t!e #istinction ma#e &y Lenin% Practical i#eolo(ies an# mo#es of li in( an# feelin( !a e t!eir roots in t!e economic &ase9 t!e relation &et$een civilta an# pro#uction is a pi otal point in <ramsciBs $!ole pro&lematic of capitalism, an# of socialism too% )*+-A9 -+. In a##ition, for <ramsci, ci il society cannot &e fully (raspe# separate from its internal relations $it! political society, since ci il society in ol es t!e lin7a(e &et$een class relations in t!e economy an# t!e e"plicitly political aspect of t!e primary a(ent of coercion, t!e state% T!e #ual perspecti e of consent8coercion unites political an# ci il societies in <ramsciBs e"ten#e# or inte(ral state, =t!e unifie# site in $!ic! /estern &our(eois classes !a e esta&lis!e# t!eir social po$er as C!e(emony protecte# &y t!e armour of coercion%B> )Rupert *++?9 ,+.

3roletarian counterhegemony then ta&es place in the integral state, construed by 9ramsci as 5the entire comple' of practical and theoretical acti ities with which the ruling class not only

%ustifies and maintains its dominance, but manages to win the acti e consent of those o er whom it rules.6 @9ramsci ;<K;0 JDDA 9i en this misreading of 9ramsci, it is no wonder that +aid is unable, in Orientalism, to propose alternati es to the hegemonic discourse of Orientalism. Dennis 3orter comments0 5because N+aidO o erloo&s the potential contradiction between discourse theory and 9ramscian hegemony, he fails to historici!e ade*uately the te'ts he cites and summari!es, finding always the same triumphant discourse where se eral are fre*uently in conflict.6 @;<<D0 ;G=A This leads us to +aidLs postcolonial eclecticism, which hardens into an orthodo'y as the 8andung 5third worldism6 of the si'ties and dependency liberalism of the se enties mutates into the neoconser ati e postmodernism of the eighties and nineties. (n a criti*ue of mainstream postcolonial theory, 1rif Dirli& noted the fetishism of hybridity and the antifoundationalist re%ection of history by 8habha and others. 3ostcolonialismLs complicity with capitalist reification and commodity-fetishism has also been e'amined by )allinicos, 3arry and others. +aid @;<<DA endorses 8habhaLs uni ersali!ing conception of the hybridity of all cultures, but the celebration of multiplicity, difference and syncretism at the end of Culture and Imperialism still occurs within the field of a pluralist global mar&et which can tolerate +aidLs ethical protest. Despite this morali!ing, Dirli& argues, +aidLs lac& of a dialectical method e'plains why he has failed to ta&e into account the 5OrientalLs participation in the unfolding of the discourse of the Orient6 @;<<K0 ;;B$ see also )hen Fiaomei ;<<DA, and heed the imperati e of historici!ing capitalist modernity and its hegemonic reifying of non-"estern cultures. 1n admirer of +aid, ?rederic& 8uell in his boo& #ational Culture and the #e$ %lo&al System aptly describes +aidLs stance0 5.. . +aid tries to bridge both positions Nthat of +ara +uleri and 8enita 3arryO, ad ancing, for e'ample, his ision of a ehemently antinationalist, yet ardently anti-imperialist, ?anon for the present era, and eschewing a Mpolitics of blame,L ad ocating compassion, and see&ing to forge Mnew alignments...across borders, types, nations, and essencesL at the same time as he writes an e'tended indictment of imperial culture.6 @;<<D0 JCKA ?anon is refunctioned or rehabilitated to legitimi!e an academic regime of compromise and liberal multiculturalism4a perfect description of the middleman negotiator. On the other hand, #asLud Pa ar!adeh locates +aidLs pragmatic neohumanism in the hori!on of post-al theory, 5a utopian theory of entrepreneurial indi iduality and agency,. . . a oluntarism unburdened by history.6 @;<<>0 KA One e idence that points to +aidLs limitation as mar&ed by the refusal of a materialist, that is, #ar'ist theori!ation of history may be discerned in his treatment of ).2.R. Eames. ?or +aid, EamesL achie ement in The 'lac( )aco&ins is comparable to that of the petty-bourgeois nationalist 9eorge 1ntonius, author of The Ara& A$a(enin*+ 8oth allegedly stood within the fold of the "estern cultural tradition, 5howe er much they articulate the ad ersarial e'perience of colonial andHor non-"estern peoples.6 @JDBA

(n effect, both 1ntonius and Eames, li&e Rana%it 9uha, resemble +aid or are mirror-images of +aidLs postcolonial persona. Eames has metamorphosed into a model of the assimilationist immigrant. 1ccording to +aid, Eames 5saw the central pattern of politics and history in linear terms . . . and his basic metaphor is that of a oyage ta&en by ideas and people$ those who were sla es and subser ient classes could first become the immigrants and then the principal intellectuals of a di erse new society.6 @J>CA The reason why postcolonial thin&ing li&e +aidLs cannot go beyond the limits of a liberal mentality arises from the peculiar condition of diasporic intellectuals, the political con%uncture of the .nited +tates in the eighties and nineties, and the global power alignment. 3eter 9ran, 1rif Dirli&, Ella +hohat, 1nn #c)lintoc& and others ha e discussed the historical con%unctures4in +aidLs case, the 3alestinian struggle within the )old "ar framewor&, the poststructuralist trend, and so on4that partly e'plain the rise of a conser ati e postcolonial consensus. The general sociohistorical template of 5une en and combined de elopment6 has been fully articulated by +amir 1min @;<KKA, #ichael 2Qwy @;<B;A and ,eil +mith @;<BDA, a materialist cogniti e mapping theoretically light years remo ed from ,iet!schean genealogy, which is +aidLs preferred epistemological mode of in*uiry @in spite of the uneasy marriage between ?oucaultLs discourse theory and a ersion of 9ramsciLs hegemonyA. @3orter ;<<DA This problematic eschews a dialectical approach to the fundamental condition of late modernity0 reification @centered on commodity-fetishism and the circulation of e'change aluesA on a global scale. .ltimately, +aidLs muted or nuanced anti-#ar'ism is premised on the choice of a libertarian or 5liberationist6 perspecti e. ,icos 3oulant!as @;<KBA and 1le' )allinicos @;<B<A ha e already e'posed the antinomies and compromising parado'es of this anarchist illusion. (n this perspecti e, powerHdesire determines the tra%ectory of societies$ any claim to &nowledge and truth 4truth is, for +aid, 5a function of learned %udgment,6 of institutionali!ed discourses4can only be a form of ideological maneu er, history or any of the 5grand metanarrati es6 deri ed from the Enlightenment suspected as a totali!ing blac&mail. "hile +aidLs ambition to liberate EuropeLs silent Others from the imperial will-to&nowledgeHpower, to gi e them oice or the right of representation and signification, is e'ceptional is-a- is 8audrillardLs cynicism and the general nihilism of postmodernist gurus, this attempt undercuts itself by re indicating a liberal brand of humanism on which imperial capital accumulation relies for its aesthetic and ethical legitimation. This middleman position stems from a re olt against the subordination of use- alue to e'change alue and the failure to grasp the contradictions inherent in the system of commodity production, in the logic of capitalism as such @Haug ;<BGA. 8ut the &ey to this retrograde strategy of humanist recuperation lies in the absence in +aidLs thin&ing of the category of a differentiated and dynamic totality that underlies historical de elopment, the principle of a #ar'ist criti*ue of imperialism. This totality, in #e!sarosLs

words, is 5a structured and historically determined o erall comple'6 @;<BC0 DB=A embodied in the manifold mediations and transitions of concrete life. Distinctions can be meaningful only within an integral unity, a comple' of internal relations in historical motion. (n #ar'ist thought, Har ey e'plains, 5Difference is gi en in this scheme of things by the perspecti e on the totality, not by supposing some clearly defined, isolated entity that is a totality in itself64an ontological shift that sets the historical-materialist optic apart from poststructuralist te'tualism and its fetishism of the local and heterogeneous, with its antiessentialist and antifoundationalist retreat into the obscurantism of 2acanian psychology. Despite +aidLs stress on worldliness and the secular density of e'perience, it is stri&ing that he has no dialectical grasp of the structure of a concrete multilayered totality such as finance capital, imperialism in its se eral stages, and so on. +aid aims for 5emancipation6 and 5enlightenment6 but confesses that 5the transnational capitalism of global finance6 is 5relati ely irrational and ery difficult to comprehend6 @;<<D0 JDA4a difficulty that +aid mystifies the more by %udging it irrational. (t seems to me that #ary 2ouise 3ratt has correctly put a finger on the symptomatic absence in +aid of any criti*ue of neocolonialism, since this historical phenomenon mar&s the limits of postcolonial theory. 3ratt argues0 5This difference in chronology with respect to coloni!ation and decoloni!ation seems to be one of the main reasons the 1mericas ha e remained almost entirely off the map of the colonial discourse mo ement and colonial studies in general.6 @;<<D0 DA ..+. neocolonialism is the 5missing lin&6 in +aidLs fugal charting of modern imperialism. Remar&able too, in this conte't, is the absence of references to the struggles of the 5internal colonies6 of the .nited +tates, in particular, the 3uerto Rican dilemma, the Hawaii so ereignty struggle, and raging conflicts o er 1ffirmati e 1ction and 5undocumented aliens,6 among others. ( donLt ha e to dilate on the fact that postcolonial criticism has been unable to comprehend or pay attention to the current crises in 1frica, in East Timor, #yanmar, 3eru and other societies suffering from neocolonial structures. The inability to comprehend neocolonialism results, ( thin&, from the failure to comprehend une en and combined de elopment, itself due to an idealist metaphysics that o er- alori!es the inter ention of the diasporic, postcolonial intellectual in political struggle. This intellectualism or theoreticism, if you li&e, arrogates all agency to borderland personalities li&e +aid, 8habha, Trinh, +pi a& and others who see& to negotiate the !one between the bourgeoise-comprador nationalism of neocoloni!ed nation-states and the cosmopolitan 5high culture6 circuit of academic celebrities. Hence, despite the mention of )abral or ?anon, +aid discounts organi!ed mass political struggles as the other pole of a dialectical totality. He has nothing to say about the pra'is of re olutionary transformation, about cultural literacy @emphasi!ed by 3aulo ?reireA and all those 5sub%ecti e factors6 that #ichael 2Qwy belie es are necessary to thwart bureaucratic despotism in postcapitalist societies0 5the participatory character of the re olutionary process, the democratic outloo& of the socialist anguard, the degree of proletarian self-acti ity and popular self-organi!ation.6 @2Qwy ;<B;0 JC=A

"ith the focus on contrapuntal flu', hybrid positionalities, and directionless or aleatory ambi alence, the postcolonial intellectualsL sophisticated and erudite opposition to global capital can only ser e as a ehicle for soothing the anguish of the oppressed and promising a utopia of 5cultural compassion.6

REFERENCES
1hmad, 1i%a!. ;<<J. In Theory+ Classes #ations ,iteratures. 2ondon0 Verso. ----. ;<<>. 53ost-)olonialism0 "hatLs (n 1 ,ame76 (n ,ate Imperial Culture . Edited by Roman de la )ampa, E.1nn Iaplan, and #ichael +prin&er. 2ondon0 Verso. 1min, +amir. ;<KK. Imperialism and -ne.ual Development. ,ew -or&0 #onthly Re iew 3ress. ------. ;<B<. /urocentrism. ,ew -or&0 #onthly Re iew 3ress. 8habha, Homi. ;<<D. The ,ocation of Culture. ,ew -or&0 Routledge. 8uci-9luc&smann, )hristine. ;<B=. %ramsci and the State. 2ondon0 2awrence and "ishart. 8uell, ?rederic&. ;<<D. #ational Culture and the #e$ %lo&al System. 8altimore0 The Eohns Hop&ins 3ress. )allinicos, 1le'. ;<<>. 5"onders Ta&en for +igns0 Homi 8habhaLs 3ostcolonialism.6 (n Post0Ality+ Mar"ism and Postmodernism. Edited by #asLud Pa ar!adeh, Teresa Ebert, and Donald #orton. "ashington, D)0 #aisonneu e 3ress. ----. ;<B<. A*ainst Postmodernism. ,ew -or&0 +t. #artins 3ress. )hen Fiaomei. ;<<D. Occidentalism+ Theory of Counter0Discourse in Post0Mao China. ,ew -or&0 O'ford .ni ersity 3ress. Dirli&, 1rif. ;<<K. The Postcolonial Aura. 8oulder0 "est iew 3ress. 9ramsci, 1ntonio. ;<K;. +elections from the 3rison ,oteboo&s. ,ew -or&0 (nternational 3ublishers. 9ran, 3eter. ;<<K. 5+ubaltern +tudies as 3ra'is in (ndia and in the .nited +tates.6 .npublished draft. 9rossberg, 2awrence. ;<<G. 5(dentity and )ultural +tudies0 (s That 1ll There (s76 (n Questions of Cultural Identity. Edited by +tuart Hall and 3aul du 9ay. 2ondon0 +age 3ublishers. Har ey, Da id. ;<<G. )ustice #ature and the %eo*raphy of Difference. )ambridge, #ass.0 8lac&well. Haug, ".?. ;<BG. Criti.ue of Commodity Aesthetics. #inneapolis0 .ni ersity of #innesota 3ress.

2efeb re, Henri. ;<GB. Dialectical Materialism. Tr. by Eohn +turroc&. 2ondon0 Eonathan )ape. 2u&acs, 9eorg. ;<K;. 1istory and Class Consciousness. Tr. by Rodney 2i ingston. 2ondon0 #erlin 3ress. #es!aros, (st an. ;<BC. 5Totality.6 (n A Dictionary of Mar"ist Thou*ht. Ed. Tom 8ottomore. )ambridge, #ass0 Har ard .ni ersity 3ress. #ulhern, ?rancis, ed. ;<;<<J. Contemporary Mar"ist ,iterary Criticism. 2ondon0 2ongman. 3orter, Dennis. ;<<D. 5Orientalism and its 3roblems.6 (n Colonial Discourse and Post0 Colonial Theory. Ed. 3atric& "illiams and 2aura )hrisman. ,ew -or&0 )olumbia .ni ersity 3ress. 3oulant!as, ,icos. ;<KB. State Po$er Socialism. 2ondon0 Verso. 3ratt, #ary 2ouise. ;<<D. 5)omment on Edward +aidLs )ulture and (mperialism.6 Social Te"t C<0 J-;=. Rupert, #ar&. ;<<C. 51lienation, )apitalism and the (nter-+tate +ystem0 Towards a #ar'ianH9ramscian )riti*ue.6 (n %ramsci 1istorical Materialism and International Relations. Ed. +tephen 9ill. ,ew -or&0 )ambridge .ni ersity 3ress. +aid, Edward. ;<K<. Orientalism. ,ew -or&0 Vintage 8oo&s. ----. ;<BC. The !orld the Te"t and the Critic. ----. ;<<D. Culture and Imperialism. ,ew -or&0 1lfred Inopf. ----. ;<<D. 5Response.6 Social Te"t C<0 J=-JD. +an Euan, E. ;<<B. 'eyond Postcolonial Theory. ,ew -or&0 +t. #artins 3ress. +mith, ,eil. ;<BD. -neven Development. ,ew -or&0 8asil 8lac&well. Turner, 8ryan +. ;<<J. Orientalism Postmodernism and %lo&alism. ,ew -or&0 Routledge. "allerstein, (mmanuel. ;<<;. 5The )onstruction of 3eoplehood0 Racism, ,ationalism, Ethnicity.6 (n Race #ation Class &y /tienne 'ali&ar and Immanuel !allerstein. ,ew -or&0 Verso. Pa ar!adeh, #asLud. ;<<>. 53ostality0 The @DisAsimulation of )ypercapitalism.6 (n Post0 Ality+ Mar"ism and Postmodernism. Ed. #asLud Pa ar!adeh, Teresa Ebert and Donald #orton. "ashington D)0 #aisonneu e 3ress. 1T) KK, ,o ember-December ;<<B

See <ayatri Spi a7Ds &oo7 re ie$e# in Lon#on Re ie$ of 6oo7s% Do$nloa# !ttp988$$$%lr&%co%u78 3*8n*A8terry:ea(leton8in:t!e:(au#y:supermar7et

!ttp988$il7ersonessayist%$or#press%com83A**8A@8A?8mar"ism: s:post:colonialism8

Marxism !s) Post*Colonialism

Posted "y +en ')+) ,ilkerson in Literature A? Tues#ay May 3A** Mar"ism $as first t!eori'e# &y 5arl Mar", a <erman, an# loo7s at e eryt!in( t!rou(! an economic ie$point% It &asically focuses on t!e economic realities of !uman culture )Tyson @?.% Accor#in( to Mar"ism, our primary (oal as !uman &ein(s is to o&tain an# 7eep economic po$er t!rou(! all our social an# political acti ities )Tyson @?.% =Economics is t!e &ase on $!ic! t!e superstructure of social8political i#eolo(ical realities is &uilt> )Tyson @E.% T!ere are many 7ey terms in Mar"ist t!eory% Economic con#itions are calle# material circumstances an# all t!e aspects of society an# politics are calle# t!e !istorical situation )Tyson @E.% A term also use# is pra"is $!ic! =#ictates t!at t!eoretical i#eas can &e 1u#(e# to !a e alue only in terms of t!eir concrete applications, t!at is, only in terms of t!eir applica&ility to t!e real $orl#> )Tyson @E.% Mar"ism also !as a lot to #eal $it! #i isions in societyF t!ere are =!a es> an# =!a e:nots> or t!e &our(eoisie an# t!e proletariats )Tyson @E.% Ot!er interpretati e t!eories an# people in (eneral $ill not a#mit to t!is #ifference an# instea# attri&ute #i isions to racial, et!nic, or reli(ious i#eas )Tyson @E.% To a Mar"ist, t!is is an i#eolo(y not a natural $ay of seein( t!e $orl# )Tyson @-.% Mar"ism often #eals $it! t!e &a# effects of capitalism, imperialism, an# colonialism% Mar"ism often correlates $it! !uman psyc!olo(y in t!e $ay t!at it stu#ies !uman &e!a ior an# moti ation in psyc!olo(ical terms% Gnli7e psyc!oanalysis, Mar"ism #eals $it! t!e material8!istorical forces t!at s!ape our psyc!olo(y )Tyson HE.% Mar"ists claim t!at family conflicts an# psyc!olo(ical $oun#s are t!e result of i#eolo(ical forces e"emplifie# in t!e culture )Tyson HE.% In literature, Mar"ists loo7 at !o$ psyc!olo(ical stru((les are cause# &y material8!istorical realities )i#eolo(ies. $it!in $!ic! a family operates )Tyson H@.% Also literature #oes not e"ist in a timeless, aest!etic realmF rat!er it is t!e pro#uct of socioeconomic an# i#eolo(ical con#itions of t!e time an# place in $!ic! it $as $ritten )Tyson HH.% Tyson #iscusses arious Iuestions t!at Mar"ism see7s to as7 a&out literary te"ts% First, =#oes t!e $or7 reinforce )intentionally or not. capitalist, imperialist, or classist alues> )Tyson H-.J T!e secon# Iuestion is =!o$ mi(!t t!e $or7 &e seen as a critiIue of capitalism, imperialism, or classism> )Tyson H-.J T!ir#, #oes t!e $or7 support a Mar"ist a(en#a in some $ays &ut also support t!e ot!er a(en#as as $ell )Tyson H-.J Fourt!, !o$ #oes t!e $or7 reflect t!e socioeconomic ten#encies of t!e time it $as $ritten )Tyson H-.J Finally, !o$ mi(!t t!e $or7 &e seen as a critiIue of reli(ion )Tyson H-.J Stuart 4all is a proponent of 6ritis! cultural t!eories an# $as #eeply in ol e# $it! Mar"ism% 4is article, =Cultural Stu#ies an# Its T!eoretical Le(acies>, is focuse# on t!e contest of cultural stu#ies an# Mar"ism% 4is #esire in t!e article is to loo7 at t!e =No$> an# t!e =Future> of cultural stu#ies in a retrospecti e sense )Leitc! *,-?.% Cultural stu#ies !e says, is a =#iscursi e formation, FoucaultDs sense> )Leitc! *,-E.% It !as no simple ori(ins since its $or7 (re$ out of ot!er stu#ies )Leitc! *,-E.% Cultural stu#ies t!en !as many facets an# all of t!em point to #ifferent influences )Leitc! *,-E.% Cultural stu#ies is also open to ot!er i#eas )Leitc! *,-E.% 4all #eclares t!at !e ori(inally came from t!e Ne$ Left, a mo ement $!ic! re(ar#s Mar"ism as a pro&lem not a solution )Leitc! *,-@.% 4is criticism of Mar"ism is t!at it is a =mo#e of t!ou(!t, as an acti ity of critical practice> )Leitc! *,-H.% 4e also states t!at

Mar"ism is &ase# on Eurocentrism )Leitc! *,-H.% 4e #enies t!e i#ea t!at Mar"ism an# cultural stu#ies are one )Leitc! *,-,.% 4e also #iscusses <ramsci in t!e $ay t!at !e =ra#ically #isplace# some of t!e in!eritances of Mar"ism in cultural stu#ies> )Leitc! *,-,.% 4all states t!at Mar"ism is =pure reco(nition0t!e pro#uction of $!at you alrea#y 7no$> )*,--.% 4all t!en turns to tal7 a&out t$o mo ements t!at interrupte# t!e $or7 of cultural stu#ies9 feminism an# Iuestions of race )Leitc! *,-+.% Feminism came in an# t!e effect $as specific an# #ecisi e )Leitc! *,-+.% =It reor(ani'e# t!e fiel# in Iuite concrete $ays> )Leitc! *,-+.% T!e openin( of t!e Iuestion of t!e personal as political an# its conseIuences $ere Iuite ra#ical )Leitc! *,-+.% Secon#, t!ere $as a ra#ical e"pansion of t!e i#ea of po$er )Leitc! *,-+.% T!ir#, (en#er an# se"uality &ecame closely tie# to t!e issues of po$er )Leitc! *,-+.% Fourt!, more Iuestions erupte# aroun# t!e area of su&1ecti e an# su&1ect as &ein( t!e center of cultural stu#ies )Leitc! *,-+.% Fift!, Iuestions of psyc!oanalysis $ere also raise# )Leitc! *,-+.% T!ese issues of feminism $ere raise# especially $!en t!ey trie# to (et $omen sc!olars to promote t!e stu#ies of it in cultural stu#iesF t!e plan &ac7fire# )Leitc! *,+A.% T!ere $as also a ma1or stru((le for cultural stu#ies to ma7e up its min# on racial issues )Leitc! *,+A.% It $as only accomplis!e# t!rou(! a &itter stru((le )Leitc! *,+A.% 4e states t!at mo ements pro o7e t!eoretical moments )Leitc! *,+A.% Furt!ermore, =!istorical con1unctures insist on t!eories> )Leitc! *,+A.% 4e also tal7s a&out !o$ structuralist, semiotic, an# post:structuralist $or7s $it!in cultural stu#iesF t!ere is a crucial importance of lan(ua(e in re(ar#s to culture )Leitc! *,+*.% =T!e metap!or of t!e #iscursi e, of te"tuality, instantiates a necessary #elay> $!ic! is al$ays present in culture )Leitc! *,+*.% In cultural stu#ies, t!ere is al$ays #isplacement )Leitc! *,+*.% T!e 7ey t!in( to reali'e, as 4all puts it, is it =as7s us to assume t!at culture $ill al$ays $or7 t!rou(! its te"tualities> )*,+3.% 4o$e er, cultural stu#ies nee#s to $or7 $it!in t!is tension )Leitc! *,+3.% =If you lose !ol# of t!e tension, you can #o e"tremely fine intellectual $or7, &ut you $ill !a e lost intellectual practice as a politics> )Leitc! *,+3.% An# t!at is $!at cultural stu#ies is all a&out% 4e conclu#es t!e article &y sayin( t!at t!ere is a (reat #ifference &et$een un#erstan#in( t!e politics of intellectual $or7 )cultural stu#ies. an# su&stitutin( intellectual $or7 for politics )Leitc! *,+@.% T!e secon# t!eory to #iscuss is Post:Colonialism% Tyson states t!at post:colonialism is =particularly effecti e at !elpin( us see connections amon( all t!e #omains of our e"perience 0t!e psyc!olo(ical, i#eolo(ical, social, political, an# aest!etic0in $ays t!at s!o$ us 1ust !o$ insepara&le t!ese cate(ories are in our li e# e"periences of oursel es an# our $orl#> )E*,.% Tyson also states t!at &ecause Post Colonialism #efines formerly coloni'e# peoples as any population t!at !as &een su&1ecte# to t!e political #omination of anot!er population, one may see Post:Colonial critics #ra$ e"amples from literary $or7s of African Americans as $ell as ot!er post:colonial peoples )E*,.% T!is t!eory emer(e# in t!e early *+AADs an# is surprisin(ly a $!ite #ominate# area of stu#y, #espite its t!eories an# stu#ies in t!ir# $orl# countries )E*,.% As a #omain $it!in literature stu#ies, PC is &ot! a su&1ect matter an# t!eoretical frame$or7 )E*-.% As a su&1ect matter post:colonial criticism analy'es literature pro#uce# &y countries t!at #e elope# in response to colonialism )from t!e first contact to t!e present. )E*-.% As a t!eoretical frame$or7 post:colonialist criticism see7s to un#erstan# t!e operations0politically, socially, etc0of colonialist an# anti:colonialist i#eolo(ies )E*-.% Tyson also #iscusses PC i#entity% T!ere are se eral 7ey i#eas in t!is area% T!ey are t!e resi#ual effect of colonial #omination, $!ic! is essentially t!e prescence of t!e En(lis! lan(ua(e in former coloniesF t!e #ynamic psyc!olo(ical an# social interplay &et$een t!e nati e, cultures an# t!e 6ritis! culture t!at $as impose# on t!emF an# finally a mer(er an# anta(onism &et$een t!e culture of coloni'e# an# t!at of t!e coloni'er )E*+.% T!ere are fe$

terms PC critics use t!at apply to t!is i#ea% T!e term =Left 6e!in#> means t!e inculcation of a 6ritis! system of (o ernment an# e#ucation, 6ritis! culture, an# 6ritis! alue t!at #eni(rates t!e culture of morals an# e en p!ysical appearance of formerly su&1u(ate# peoples )Tyson E*+.% E":colonials are often left $it! a psyc!olo(ical in!eritance of ne(ati e self ima(e an# alienation from in#i(enous cultures )Tyson E*+.% Finally, Tyson #iscusses some Iuestions t!at critics as7 a&out t!e te"t% 4o$ #oes t!e literary te"t, e"plicitly or alle(orically, represent arious aspects of colonial oppression )Tyson E?*.J /!at #oes t!e te"t re eal a&out t!e pro&lems of postcolonial i#entity)Tyson E?*.J /!at #oes t!e te"t re eal a&out t!e politics an#8or psyc!olo(y of anti:colonial resistance)Tyson E?*.J /!at #oes t!e te"t re eal a&out t!e operations of cultural #ifferences)Tyson E?*.J 4o$ #oes t!e te"t respon# to or comment on t!e c!aracters, topics, or assumptions of a canoni'e# )colonialist. $or7)Tyson E?*.J Are t!ere meanin(ful similarities amon( t!e literatures of #ifferent post:colonial populations)Tyson E?*.J 4o$ #oes a literary te"t in t!e /estern canon reinforce or un#ermine colonialist i#eolo(y t!rou(! its representation of coloni'ation an#8or its inappropriate silence a&out coloni'e# peoples)Tyson E?*.J One of t!e articles of post:colonialism is t!e Fanon article #iscusse# in Leitc!% Fanon focuse# on t!e role of intellectuals to support an# #efen# African nations a(ainst impen#in( Colonialism% 4e $as consi#ere# an =ot!er> in France re(ar#less of !is time in t!e Frenc! ser ice )Leitc! *E?,.% 4e #iscusse# colonial #omination as it !appens t!rou(! E e ents% T!ey are t!e =ne(ation of national reality>, =ne$ le(al relations intro#uce# &y t!e occupyin( po$er>, =&anis!ment of t!e nati es an# t!eir customs to outlyin( #istricts &y colonial society, &y e"propriation>, an# =systematic ensla in( of men an# $omen> )Leitc! *EEA.% 4e also #iscusse# arious reactions t!at nati es !a# to colonialism% 4e foun# t!at t!e nati e is ma#e to a#mit t!e inferior or unrealistic nature of !is o$n &iolo(ical structure )Leitc! *EE*.% T!us t!ere are t$o #ifferent reactions9 some try to maintain cultural tra#itions $!ile ot!ers try to acIuire t!e culture of t!e occupyin( po$er )Leitc! *EE*.% A c!an(e in national literature is seen9 =/!ile at t!e &e(innin( t!e nati e intellectual use# to pro#uce !is $or7 to &e rea# e"clusi ely &y t!e oppressorKno$ t!e nati e $riter pro(ressi ely ta7es on t!e !a&it of a##ressin( !is o$n people> )Leitc! *EE3.% T!e effects of colonialism are furt!er seen in t!e arts% T!is is particularly foun# in oral tra#itions, !an#i$or7, an# ceramics% Fanon states t!at $!en cultural tra#itions are mo#erni'e#, =it is t!e colonialists $!o &ecome t!e #efen#ers of t!e nati e style> )*EE?.% Fanon, interestin(ly enou(! #iscusses t!is $it! re(ar# to American culture, especially $it! re(ar# to &e:&op 1a''% T!ere $as t!e #ispara(in( t!ou(!t t!at $it! t!e intro#uction of 6e:6op La''9 =t!eir eyes 1a'' s!oul# only &e t!e #espairin(, &ro7en:#o$n nostal(ia of an ol# Ne(ro $!o is trappe# &et$een fi e (lasses of $!is7ey, t!e curse of !is race, an# t!e racial !atre# of t!e $!ite men> )Leitc! *EE?:E.% 4o$e er, =in fifty yearsD time t!e type of 1a'' !o$l !iccuppe# &y a poor misfortunate Ne(ro $ill &e up!el# only &y t!e $!ites $!o &elie e in it as an e"pression of Ne(ritu#e, an# $!o are fait!ful to t!is arreste# ima(e of a type of relations!ip> )Fanon *EEE.% To$ar# t!e en# of !is article, Fanon as7s t!e Iuestion9 =/!at are t!e relations &et$een t!e stru((le: $!et!er political or military: an# cultureJ> )*EE@.% 4is reply is t!at =Culture is not put into col# stora(e #urin( t!e conflict% T!e stru((le itself in its #e elopment an# in its internal pro(ression sen#s culture alon( #ifferent pat!s an# traces out entirely ne$ ones for it> )*EE@.% Finally, !e states t!at after Colonialism is (one, =t!is ne$ !umanity cannot #o ot!er$ise t!an #efine a ne$ !umanism &ot! for itself an# for ot!ers> )*EE@.% An# t!at =it is at t!e !eart of national consciousness t!at international consciousness li es an# (ro$s> )*EEH.%

So !o$ are t!ese t$o t!eories similar an# #issimilarJ First !o$ are t!ey similarJ Mar"ism an# Post:Colonialism &ot! #eal $it! i#eolo(ies in a ne(ati e manner% Mar"ism loo7s at i#eolo(ies suc! as capitalism, patriotism, reli(ion, communism, classism, e en racism an# s!o$s !o$ t!ese t!in(s #ri e !uman &ein(s in ma7in( economic an# political #ecisions t!at are more t!an often repressi e% Post:Colonialism also loo7s at i#eolo(ies &ut in a some$!at similar $ay% T!ey loo7 at !o$ /estern countries, controlle# &y t!eir i#eolo(ies a&out certain peoples, races, an# lan(ua(es, repress ot!er countries aroun# t!e $orl#% Suc! /estern i#eolo(ies are racism, Orientalism, Eurocentrism, etc% T!ese i#eolo(ies (i e t!e coloni'ers certain impressions a&out t!e in#i(enous peoples $!ic! t!ey in#octrinate t!em $it!F suc! i#eas t!at (i e t!e coloni'e# lo$ self esteem for t!emsel es an# t!eir culture% 6ot! t!eories of criticism are closely lin7e# $it! psyc!oanalysis an# &ot! #eal $it! t!at stu#y in #ifferent $ays% 6ot! critical t!eories !o$e er are #issimilar in t!e $ay t!at Mar"ism loo7s at economic an# political outcomes of peopleDs i#eolo(ies $!ile Post:Colonialism loo7s at more of t!e cultural an# psyc!olo(ical outcomes of /estern colonialism% Also, Mar"ism (enerally loo7s at issues an# literature confine# to t!e /estern $orl#% I e en t!in7 4all calle# !im Eurocentric% /!ile t!ose $!o use Post:colonialist t!eory to analy'e literature are pre#ominately in t!e /est, t!ey focus on literature in t!ir# $orl# countries (enerally% Suc! are t!e similarities an# #ifferences &et$een Mar"ism an# Post:colonialism%

!ttp988$$$%postcolonial$e&%or(8pol#iscourse8spi a787in7ea#%!tml

The Intersection of Marxism and Postcolonialism

'arren -inkead ./0, North#estern 1ni!ersity
NThis essay was originally written for English CG>, 3ostcolonial Theory and 2iterature, by one of Eillana EnteenLs students in the Department of English and )omparati e 2iterary +tudies at ,orthwestern .ni ersity.O

(t is a re olutionary ideology that has been hailed as possessing a predicti e genius while simultaneously being bemoaned as a pro en failure. (t pro o&es passion and fear across the capitalist world yet it is also a discourse deeply rooted in the problematic "estern production of &nowledge. "hat rele ancy, then, does #ar'ist discourse ha e within a dialogue of deconstruction7 Two significant theorists, Robert -oung and 9ayatri )ha&ra orty +pi a&, find its use to be inhibiting and informati e, respecti ely. This paper will see& to e'amine their arguments, along with a troubling of #ar'ism itself, in order to better understand the nature of these two perspecti es. The intersection of #ar'ism and poststructural theory presents an opportunity for an instructi e e'amination of the fallacies of the former, its limits in informing the latter, and ultimately its prescripti e and analytical efficacy for future pro%ects of deconstruction. .ltimately we may see& to understand what rele ancy this intersection specifically has as regards postcolonial theory. #ar'ism is a radical criti*ue of "estern capitalism and the se ere ine*ualities with which groups are stratified in their relationship to the means of production. The prescripti e o ertones of #ar'ism lie in the reasoning that this stratification, the theory posits, will ultimately lead to a global re olution in which the bourgeoisie are deposed by the proletariat. This theoretical conclusion is rendered powerful in the conte't of #ar'Ls e'amination of History. (f this global process consists, as #ar'ist Theory claims it does, of a dialectical conflict between those with access to the benefits of modernity and those who find themsel es powerless at the hands of the e'cesses of those who control their access to these rewards, then #ar'ist TheoryLs insistence that the natural progression of this relationship will result in a positi e outcome relies on the fact that History is uni-linear. #ar'ismLs reliance on the wor&ings of History demonstrates a reliance on the forced categori!ation of the un&nown into that dialectic0 otherwise the efficacy of the prescripti e nature of #ar'ist Theory is threatened. 1s Robert -oung notes in "hite #ythologies0 "riting, History and the "est, in problemati!ing the positi ist inscription of History according to #ar' RNtNhe *uestion about history then becomes the more interesting one of the relationship between different significations, and the ways in which such differences can, or cannot, be articulated and unified under the same hori!on of totali!ation to produce a single meaning. . . history will ine itably continue as a representation and interpretation of the past -- rather than #ar'ist truth and the false or limited interpretation of all other historiansR @;<<=0 JJA. #ar'ism, according to the criti*ues of poststructuralists li&e -oung, necessarily engages in a iolent suppression of difference when it encounters the Other. This is to be ta&en both literally and figurati ely. "e may see the latter in the iolent way the history of the non-"est is marginali!ed and essentiali!ed to fit within the neat boundaries of #ar'ist dialecticism$ we may see the former in the act of coloni!ation itself. #ar'ist uncertainty with e'actly what role the non-"est would play in the coming global re olution may be e idenced in the theoretical hesitation with which #ar' approached his contro ersial 1siatic #ode of 3roduction, a pro%ect with which he engaged, as 9ayatri +pi a& notes is the

standard e'planation, to answer the *uestion, Rwhy did the normati e logic of )apital not determine itself in the same way e erywhere7. . . why is Europe not the only self-identified Ssame7LR @KJA. To understand why #ar' searched rigorously for an answer to these *uestions we must first understand that colonialismLs implications in the #ar'ist dialectic of progress were considered to be, through the e'pansion of the capitalist world economy beyond Europe, Ra means through which the bourgeoisie could a oid socialist re olution at home. (ts function thus became crucial. . . since in global terms the bourgeoisie re olution is still occurringR @-oung J==;0 ;=>-GA. (f colonialism did not fit within the #ar'ist dialectic then it can be concluded that the efficacy of #ar'ist prescripti e was in *uestion. (t was due to such concerns as these that #ar' found himself with a ested interest in e'plaining, as mentioned pre iously, why non-Europe was non-Europe0 R#ar'Ls own ostensible pro%ect. . . seems to be to establish self-identity through access to a self-determination that will annul the differences established by historyR @+pi a& KBA. 1s a result of these problems regarding the formulation and reali!ation of History, #ar' sought to define the 1siatic #ode of 3roduction to e'plain the mode of production he encountered in such large, state-based societies as )hina and (ndia, thus casting himself Rin search of a system that will remo e difference after ta&ing it into accountR @+pi a& K<A. Once defined and e'plained the 1siatic #ode of 3roduction could be reconciled with History0 since this was a necessary prere*uisite for the reali!ation of a socialist re olution it was through this categori!ation that #ar' was able to ta&e into account difference. How, then, to go about remo ing it7 "e may consider #ar'ismLs iolent thrust in the literal sense insofar as it regards capitalism as the Rpharma&onR of #ar'ism, or a Rpoison that is medicinal when &nowingly administered. . . (t produces the possibility of the operation of the dialectic that will produce socialism, but left to its own resources it is also that which bloc&s that operationR @+pi a& BCA. Thus capitalism, while despicable, was simultaneously *uite useful, especially in the colonial framewor&. #ar' considered Rthe moral and humanitarian argument against colonialism. . . ultimately less important than the benefits of it effects -- the world historical mo ement toward socialismR @-oung J==;0;=BA. (nsofar as the 1siatic #ode of 3roduction was concerned #ar' felt that the R iolent introduction of capitalist modes of production. . . bro&e down the archaic SbarbarianL systems of SOriental despotismL which only reinforced a brutali!ation and degradation of human beings sub%ugated to e'ternal circumstancesR @-oung J==;0;=<A. #ar' theori!ed that capitalism, after accounting for difference, had the power to remo e it and thus render undamaged the #ar'ist dialectic. The immediate fallacy of #ar'ism, then, becomes clear0 its focus on a dialectic History into which all other e'periences were to be iolently compressed in order to effect the desired outcome underscores its position firmly inside "estern thought. (ts History, then, was also a product of "estern thought and therefore there was nothing uni ersal about its dialectic nature$ rather, as we ha e seen, it would e'perience a forced encounter with the Other that challenged the tra%ectory of #ar'ist prescription. #ar'Ls resol e, of course, once ac*uainted with this difference, was to remo e that which stood to derail the prescripti e lens through which he ordered the world. This led to some of #ar'Ls more contro ersial statements, among them his dismissal of the possibility of (ndia ha ing any history before the coming of the coloni!er and his insistence on the o erarching desirability that the modernity with which capitalismLs arri al outside of Europe, ia coloni!ation, ine itably would bring. -et the trouble with #ar' goes deeper0 Ra mere burialR of his problematic statements Rwill not ta&e care of the problem. . R +pi a& notes @K<A. -oung posits, in fact, that R#ar'ism, insofar as it inherits the system of the Hegelian dialectic, is also implicated in the lin& between the structures of &nowledge and the forms of oppression of the last two hundred years0 a phenomenon that has become &nown as EurocentrismR @;<<=0 JA. This is an important

statement0 rather than simply a product of its position in "estern Europe #ar'ism can be thought of as Ra negati e form of the history of European imperialismR @-oung ;<<=0 JA. (f, as -oung continues, Rdeconstruction in ol es the decentrali!ation and decoloni!ation of European thought -- insofar as it is Sincapable of respecting the 8eing and meaning of the otherL, and to the e'tent that its philosophical tradition ma&es common cause with oppression and with the totalitarianism of the sameLTR @;<<=0 ;BA then #ar'ism, being of the same deplorable philosophical tradition, suddenly ta&es on a more sinister air. .pon reflection this ma&es sense0 #ar', after all, treated colonialism as yet another Rpharma&onR by which the Other might be taught modernity as a conse*uence of the original Rpharma&on,R capitalism. This impetus was how a socialist utopia might be reali!ed. "hat are the implications, then, for interaction between #ar'ist and postcolonial theory7 How does one inform the other7 (n order to understand that relationship we must first in estigate the relationship between #ar'ism and poststructuralism. Robert -oung relates that resistance to poststructuralism, of which postcolonial theory is a part, was formed in its early stages by such #ar'ist intellectuals as ?ran& 2entricchia and Terry Eagleton, the latter of whom Rclaimed first that poststructuralism represented a Shedonist withdrawal from historyL @aestheticismA and, a year later, that it amounted to a more menacing holocaust-li&e Sli*uidation of historyLR 3erry 1nderson, -oung continues, has Rdismissed all poststructuralism on the grounds that it represents Sthe randomi!ation of historyL. . .R, a concern with the inherent suggestion contained within poststructuralism that Rsuggests that any such iew of history must ha e no end, and therefore no teleologyR @-oung ;<<=0J;A. Teleology, as it informs #ar'ist Theory, is a highly problematic yet necessary factor. The construction of a teleological History in ol ed, for #ar', the iolent suppression of difference0 first in accounting for it and then in destroying it. E en so the containment of difference was not enough0 Rit *uic&ly becomes clear that history has been, and continues to be, a deeply problematic concept, particularly for #ar'ism. (t has ne er succeeded in achie ing a SconcreteL e'istence outside theory, where it can lie in wait, ready to be in o&ed against itR @-oung ;<<=0 iA. -oung as&s us to consider the case of +talinism as an e'ample of the reali!ation of the #ar'ist socialist re olution0 was this the desired outcome of History or was there some mista&e in #ar'Ls conceptuali!ation7 How could History produce +talinism7 Howe er there is a more fundamental disagreement between poststructuralism and #ar'ism that -oung see&s to *uestion. (f RSHistoryL as a metahistorical category achie es its single meaning by subsuming a range of ethico-political concepts, such as SprogressL, Shuman freedomL, SnecessityL and the li&e, which then form the basis of the regulation and authori!ation of historical interpretationTR @-oung ;<<=0JJA then to frame any argumentation within a theory which necessarily in o&es such a conceptuali!ation of History is to stand in the way of any process that see&s to tear apart this ery construct. -oung posits, therefore, that as a result of the impossibility of reconciling #ar'ist HistoryLs with a deconstructi ist agenda the two thrusts are incompatible. 9ayatri +pi a&, on the other hand, does not find #ar'ist Theory to be impossibly misaligned with the pro%ect of deconstruction, a tas& for which her inno ati e methods of analysis ha e pro ed to be pro ocati ely useful. (t would be remiss to suggest that +pi a& fails to ac&nowledge the fallacies of #ar'ist Theory, howe er, for she clearly states that #ar'ismLs Rcontradiction -- between a criti*ue of the intending sub%ect in e ery presupposition, and a telos based on the intending sub%ect. . . dri es #ar'ism apart from the inside. . .R @KBA. Her ac&nowledgement of this relationship, howe er, does not preclude her from using #ar'ism as a aluable tool in her pro%ects of deconstruction. +pi a& wor&s within the realms of #ar'ism and feminism, as well as other philosophical discourses, see&ing to employ a strategic

essentialism by which she might enact her deconstructi e pro%ect. Deconstruction, she warns, is a challenge0 one who carries it out must be careful Rnot to e'cuse, but to suspend accusation to e'amine with painsta&ing care if the protocols of the te't contains a moment that can produce something that will generate a new and useful meaningR @<BA. (n order to carry out a deconstructi e reading of a philosophical entity such as #ar', +pi a& informs, we must loo& for a le er, from Derrida, RSin order to maintain a grasp on the pre ious organi!ation, which is to be transformed effecti ely,L for new uses, as it wereR @<BA. These le ers must be scrupulously manipulated in order to a oid effecting either a tainted or iolent product0 an outcome that is complicit in the ery acts it see&s to deconstruct. (n considering #ar' +pi a& chooses to focus on the 1siatic #ode of 3roduction as a le er. Here, she e'plains, the Rconcept-metaphor of the 1#3 ma&es isible the site-specific limits of #odes of 3roduction as an e'planatory categoryR @<CA. )ertainly the 1siatic #ode of 3roduction, in its iolent creation, belies the naturalness of the #odes of 3roduction and the dialectic natures that #ar'ism assumes. 8ut +pi a& warns that while Rwe cannot e'cuse #ar'Ls tremendous shifting of paradigms from the iolent conse*uences of the first wa e of global mar'isms. . . (t does not, on the other hand, call for academic accusations against #ar'ism as such. . . ( am ma&ing an attempt here to wor& at the deconstructi e Snew politics of reading,L which in ol es an effort to enter the protocols of #ar'Ls te't in order to re-inscribe it for useR @<;A (n order to do so, +pi a& introduces three Reasily a ailable secondary te'ts NthatO confront the wider-ranging issues in ol ed in #ar'Ls proposal of an S1siaticL mode. . . @B>A. 1 close reading of these te'ts in the conte't of e'amining the 1siatic #ode of 3roduction, +pi a& informs, will emphasi!e that Rthe S1siatic #ode of productionL as a SrealL description of Sactual practicesL is not an issue in its ostensibly appropriate place and time. (t will come to be needed as the crucial theoretical fiction to set the machinery of the emancipatory transformation of Hegelianism presenting itself as a general system. . . 1nd, when it performs that function, its ery in ocation is therefore its foreclosureR @BBA. 9i en these assumptions +pi a& is able to reach within the problematic implications of the 1siatic #ode of 3roduction and its inherent flaws to reach pro ocati e conclusions from the interpretation and schemati!ing wor&s based on #ar'Ls blemished theory that call into *uestion the de elopment of )apitalism in Europe0 for instance, she argues, a Rbold reinscription. . . Nof reading #ar' suggests thatO )apitalism de eloped as a Sdangerous supplementL to the Swea&L moment in European feudalism because the con*uerors could not establish a resilient stateR @<=A. This is not to suggest that there is a ScorrectL narrati e of history which +pi a& is now pri ileging$ rather her pro%ect is to use #ar'ism as a tool to displace the theoryLs own traditional narrati es. (ndeed she displays in her wor& the efficacy of such a pro%ect. (n pre ious wor& +pi a& has highlighted the similarities between #ar'Ls commodity fetish and the worlding of the Third "orld, each of which obscure problematic histories of production. (n so doing +pi a& presents a re-centered and yet still unstable obser ation. +pi a&, abo e all else, refuses to be positioned within any single discipline0 she uses pro%ects of deconstruction to ta&e away instructi e moments from a wide ariety of philosophical entures, including #ar'ism. -oung ac&nowledges the radial transformations that +pi a& is able to effect in her deconstructi e wor& yet he remains s&eptical of the o erarching alue of her pro%ect. His respect for her abilities to wor& within so many disciplines notwithstanding, -oung calls into *uestion +pi a&Ls capacity to completely remo e herself from the iolent implications of #ar'ist theory. He specifically problemati!es her use of Rresidual classical #ar'ism NwhichO is in o&ed for the use of its political effect from an outside that disa ows and apparently escapes the strictures that the rest of her wor& establishes. . .R when she spea&s of international di isions of labor, for e'ample @;<<=0;KCA. -oung upbraids +pi a& for what he

considers to be a slip that she cannot a oid0 Her #ar'ism, he suggests, Rfunctions as an o erall syncretic frame. (t wor&s. . . as a transcendentali!ing gesture to produce closure. +pi a&Ls supplemental history must itself be supplementedR @;<<=0;KCA. (t should be clear that +pi a&Ls pro%ect attempts to underta&e radical ree aluations of "estern thoughts and the legacy of "estern production of &nowledge. Howe er, an integral component of her pro%ect is the manner in which her pro%ects of deconstruction must be constantly performed in new ways. 1 single sub ersi e reading will not, she maintains, in ert the power structures that ha e become endemic within academic thought. Therefore +pi a& relies on the constant realignment of ideas that her deconstructi e pro%ects produce. +pi a& might be said to wor& outside of the academy but she also must ac&nowledge her place within it. -oungLs admonition against +pi a& assumes that her pro%ects do not suggest, much less demand, further ree aluation$ furthermore he assumes that +pi a& fails to account for her own position within the academy and within the ery structures she see&s to reconsider. -oung also ignores her stated preference for a strategic essentialism that she argues enhances her ability to further her deconstruction. 1s +pi a& informs, R,o possible reading is a misreadingR @<K-BA. Her point is that while #ar'ism can be, and has been, used in a wide ariety of iolent ways that directly circum ent her pro%ects of realignment, to unilaterally declare that it has no place in contemporary poststructural discourse would be a iolent negation analogous to #ar'ismLs own structural iolence insofar as the Other is concerned. That +pi a&Ls radical re-reading of #ar'ism has produced an important understanding of the interaction between "estern &nowledge and the Other cannot be denied. "hat, then, would -oung ha e us do with this deconstructi e product since, in order to arri e at it, one must necessarily use the iolent tools of #ar'ist discourse7 One cannot selecti ely disregard what has already been produced. -oungLs final criti*ue of +pi a& insists that she ultimately has produced an alternati e glimpse of history that, e en so, demands further supplementation. +pi a& would most li&ely agree. Her pro%ect, of course, insists on such destabili!ing strategies for to state, without *uestion, that her production of &nowledge is unilaterally True would iolate the ery spirit of her wor&. +pi a&, indeed, accounts for this. Her perspecti e allows her a wide array of philosophical disciplines from which she might choose her tools of deconstruction. To eliminate #ar'ism from that &it, e en if in so doing she would eliminate its inherent problems from her pro%ect, would be counterproducti e0 the efficacy of her wor& would suffer as a result. (ndeed e en -oungLs pro%ect, which is ostensibly to re eal the means by which the "est is constructed as the alued norm, would benefit from a borrowing from +pi a&Ls findings and methods0 to debun& #ar'ism and then to turn around and use it might seem to be parado'ical but as +pi a& has shown it is in practice a ery powerful impetus. The solution to the iolence of "estern unilateral production of &nowledge is not to suppress it in an e*ually iolent manner but to use it to sub ersi ely re-read and re-inform. 3ostcolonial theory certainly may benefit from the application of such a pro%ect. The aguely defined discipline that has begun to play an increasingly informati e role in the production of &nowledge that is alternati e to the "estern academy finds itself situated immediately with the ongoing issue of postcolonial politics. 1ny discussion of postcolonial theory, howe er, must in ol e a consideration of colonialism itself. This is important for se eral reasons. ?irst it is necessary to understand what came before in order to understand what has occurred and is still occurring as a result. +econdly, howe er, it is not certain for many who dapple in postcolonial theory that indeed the structures that effected the colonial pro%ect indeed ended when so many imperial pro%ects were derailed in the second half of the twentieth century. This is a powerful suggestion for the wor& of both -oung and +pi a& implies that structural realities ha e not been significantly re amped or e en ree aluated since the collapse of

EuropeLs colonial administrations. This is not to insinuate that there ha e been no important changes, howe er. The emergence of postcolonial theory in the "estern academy itself spea&s to an impetus to ree aluate these structural realities and the emergence of powerful oices from the postcolonial world who are acti ely engaging in similar ree'aminations. The challenge of deconstructing these per asi e configurations that still shape our production of &nowledge e en in the ostensibly named postcolonial era benefits immeasurably from the use of pro%ects such as +pi a&Ls, especially when one considers that in most cases these pro%ects are underta&en by scholars who are undeniably implicit in the ery perspecti es they see& to ree'amine. +pi a&Ls pro%ect will benefit such considerations by pro iding the guidance by which scholars might loo& for le ers within the te'tual productions of colonial and postcolonial societies to tear apart the implications of such productions and to reposition them in their relationships to these same te'ts. ?urthermore her pro%ect, especially in its constantly unstable nature, pro ides an important warning to those who would see& to deconstruct only to reconstruct the RrightR way. 3ostcolonial theory, in that it in ol es the e'amination of cultural products that ha e been created and are being created by structures that still remain as efficacious as e er, will benefit greatly from the application of +pi a&Ls &nowledge. (t is generally beyond dispute that #ar'ism suffers from se eral crippling fallacies that belie its usefulness as a strategy by which to learn History. "here #ar'ist thought intersects with poststructural theory a wide range of arguments are produced, represented here by the pro%ects of Robert -oung and 9ayatri +pi a&. (nsofar as she s&illfully uses #ar'ism to ad ance her deconstructi e pro%ects +pi a&Ls engagement with the e'onerated discourse seems to produce the most ad antageous and pro ocati e reassessment of "estern &nowledge. Thus it is her pro%ect, too, that is in the best position to radically reconsider the issues raised by the pro ocati e de eloping field of postcolonial theory.

Works Cited
+pi a&, 9ayatri )ha&ra orty. 1 )riti*ue of 3ostcolonial Reason0 Toward a History of the Vanishing 3resent. )ambridge, #ass.0 Har ard .ni ersity 3ress, ;<<<. -oung, Robert. "hite #ythologies0 "riting, History and the "est. 2ondon0 Routledge, ;<<=. UUUUU. 3ostcolonialism0 1n Historical (ntroduction. O'ford0 8lac&well 3ublishers, J==;.

!ttp988clr1ames%&lo(spot%in83A*?8AE8not:e en:mar"ist:on: i e7:c!i&&ers%!tml Mon#ay, April 3+, 3A*?

Not (!en Marxist& On i!ek Chi""er.s Polemic a2ainst Postcolonial Theory

MNote9 IB e a##e# a response to Paul 4ei#emanBs critiIue at t!e &ottom%N MMy name is C!ris Taylor% IBm an assistant professor of En(lis! at t!e Gni ersity of C!ica(o% T!is &lo( &e(an as an e"ploration of t!e life an# $or7 of C%L%R% Lames, a 3At! century Trini#a#ian Mar"ist% No$ I 1ust $rite a&out t!in(s%N

When Jacobin published Vivek Chibbers Marxist polemic against postcolonial theory, I anted to rite a counter!polemic" In #act, I did" $s both a Marxist and a postcolonialist, I #elt like Chibber as #orcing me to choose sides here sides did not need to be chosen" $#ter all, Chibber has to make several logical leaps in order to land his criticism o# postcolonial theory% in a very real ay, he has to invent it" &he most obvious problem ith Chibbers argument is the representativeness he ascribes to the 'outh $sian 'ubaltern 'tudies collective(#or Chibber, they epitomi)e postcolonial theory in all its anti!Marxist glory" &he second most obvious problem ith Chibbers argument is his re#usal to count as constitutive o# postcolonial theory all anticolonial Marxist thinkers hose ork as #oundational #or, or retroactively incorporated into, the postcolonial canon* +eorge ,admore, -rant) -anon, C"."/" 0ames, Mao, 1o Chi Minh, 2 ame 3krumah, $milcar Cabral, Walter /odney4 Chibber is not una are o# this tradition" Indeed, in Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital he recounts /obert 5oungs lengthy attempt to place this Marxist tradition at the center o# postcolonial theory, but only to discount it as spectacularly mistaken" 5oung is mistaken because 'ubaltern 'tudies and, by extension, postcolonial theory are either in tension ith or simply re6ect hat Chibber calls anticolonial socialism 789:;" In other ords, a#ter having presented a robust Marxist genealogy o# postcolonial theory, Chibber re6ects it because 'ubaltern 'tudies is postcolonial theory, 'ubaltern 'tudies is anti!Marxist, and there#ore postcolonial theory cannot be Marxist" 'o, Chibber approaches his ob6ect ith set terms that in #act constitute his ob6ect, and constitute it in such a ay that Marxism is al ays exterior to it" &his gets us to the biggest, but perhaps least obvious, problem ith Chibbers Marxist assault on 7 hat he calls; postcolonial theory* he does not approach this body o# kno ledge in a #ulsomely Marxist #ashion" Indeed, its unclear to me i# Chibber, despite his vituperative polemic against anti!Marxist postcolonial studies, could in #act be described as a Marxist at all" $t the level o# method, Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital is one o# the least dialectical, most #lat#ooted Marxist texts that Ive read in some time"

Chibbers Marxist criticism o# postcolonial theory is that postcolonial theory is not Marxism" $nd, to be clear, it is a criticism, not a criti<ue" Criti<ue maintains an intimate relationship ith the ob6ect it orks over* it inhabits the ob6ects terms, takes them as #ar as they can go, and in so doing recovers the potentials immanent to a #ield o# thought even as it highlights the boundedness o# that #ield" Criti<ue becomes so intimate to its ob6ect that the critic risks

being identi#ied ith it" 0ust think o# Marx* he so a##irmatively embraces political economy in his Kritik der politischen konomie that it is o#ten assumed that Kapital is a political economy, that Marx is a political economist" 3o one, ho ever, is going to mistake Chibber #or a postcolonialist" &his is not to say that Chibber does not cite postcolonial theoretical texts voluminously% he does" =>? o# his citations are #rom three books" @ut he unpacks the arguments o# three subalternists simply to sho that a; they misread Marxism and b; they misunderstand capitalism and c; through their miscomprehension o# Marx and capitalism they have come to articulate an anti!Marxist theory, one that mysti#ies capitalist dynamics and reinscribes Arientalist claims about the di##erence o# hat Chibber is still someho com#ortable calling, ithout irony, the Bast" 'o, Chibber departs #rom a crucial aspect o# Marxist epistemological and rhetorical protocol(criti<ue(in order to de#end Marxism" 1is very procedure assumes that Marxism exists in a position o# exteriority to postcolonial theory" Indeed, it assumes that Marxism exists as a stable and coherent set o# epistemological and political positions, positions that can be trans#ormed into propositions that establish the non!identi#y o# Marxism and postcolonial studies" 'o, postcolonial theory isnt Marxist, #ine(but hat is Marxism #or ChibberC

Its kind o# hard to say" Chibber does not expend anything like the same amount o# time unpacking(much less 6usti#ying(his o n Marxist normative and epistemological presuppositions as he does in sho ing that +uha, Chatter6ee, and Chakrabarty are anti! Marxist" In broad outlines, Chibbers Marxism depends on a de#ense o# two universalisms, one pertaining to capital and the other to labor" More speci#ically, Chibbers Marxism is bound to the idea that the modern epoch is driven by the t in #orces o#, on the one side, capitals unrelenting drive to expand, to con<uer ne markets, and to impose its domination on the laboring classes Dthe #irst universalismE, and, on the other side, the unceasing struggle by these classes to de#end themselves, their ell!being, against this onslaught Dthe second universalismE 78:=;" 'o #ar, nothing ob6ectionable* elcome to the Communist Manifesto" &he problem emerges, ho ever, hen Chibber attempts moving #rom the universal to the particular, #rom the universality o# capitalisms antagonism to the particular social )oning o# its enactment" I# postcolonial theorists ant to hold onto the particularity o# the particular, and engage the universal through it, Chibber uses these t o universalisms to denude the particular, to remove the peculiarity o# the particular in order to reduce it to the universal" Methodologically, Chibbers Marxism is pre!1egelian" Indeed, his Marxism is the kind o# monochrome #ormalism derided by 1egel, an epistemology #or hich the universal dominates the particular, one through hich the living essence o# the matter DisE stripped a ay or boxed up dead"

&he entirety o# Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital is staged as an antagonism bet een the champions o# particularism 7the 'ubaltern 'tudies people; and the champions o# universalism 7Marxists;" Minus the #irst three or so, each o# Chibbers chapters has the same #orm* the #irst section unpacks a subalternists methodological valori)ation o# some #orm o# particularity 7Indian nationalism, peasant consciousness, Chakrabartys 1istory 8; and the second section asserts a universalist counter!thesis, one that sho s ho the phenomena treated by the #eatured subalternist can actually become legible and explicable according to one o# the t o universalisms Chibber embraces" In other ords, the chapters

do not stage a dialectical tension bet een the particular and the universal" /ather, the chapters place particularist and universalist accounts side by side in a li#eless unity% indeed, the chapters keep the particular and the universal apart, positing an antinomic relation bet een them" &he superior explanatory po er o# universalist accounts is not derived or deduced but asserted"

@ut Marxism is not a #lat#ootedly universalist epistemology" 3o theory indebted to a dialectical philosophy could be" In order to trans#orm the relationship bet een the particular and the universal into an antinomic allergy, in order to assert the superior explanatory and political value o# a universalist analytic, Chibber #irst needs to contort Marxism into something it never as" Im no going to ork through both o# Chibbers universalisms, reading them alongside moments in Marxist theory" Its going to get kind o# techy, so, i# Marxian scholasticism isnt your 6am, #eel #ree to skip do n or click a ay"

The Universalism of Capital Consider Chibbers discussion o# the universali)ation o# capital" Chibber accuses the subalternists o# arguing that capital abandoned its Funiversali)ing mission in the colonial orld, a putative abandonment that has theoreticalGhistoriographical e##ects" -or Chibber, subalternists use the claim that colonial capitalism abandoned its universali)ing mission as a means to assert that theories o# capital that presuppose capitals universality are not applicable to the colonial orld" 7Its al ays, #or Chibber, a <uestion o# application, o# imposing abstract, superordinate terms onto the ordinary orlds o# the particular"; Chibbers response is that, ell, capitalism did continue its universali)ing mission" @ut hat does Chibber even mean by capitals universali)ationC 'imply put, its globali)ation, its #orcDingE producers to submit to the competitive pressures o# the market 7HI=;" 1e continues, &his drive to continually intensi#y surplus extraction and continually lo er production costs is hat is Funiversali)ed in capitalism" Capitalism thus produces abstract labor, hich Chibber rightly notes is not homogenous labor but is rather a social #iction produced by the market* the emergence o# abstract labor is speci#ic to capitalism because DitE creates a social mechanism that takes the dispersed, disparate laboring activities o# producers, and #orces them onto a common metric 7HJ:;" Chibber is making a crucial point* the universali)ation o# capital involves the implantation o# particular mechanisms o# distribution 7the market; and the #ormation o# a <uotidian social epistemology derived #rom the market 7abstract labor;" &he one implies the other"

@ut is this soC $ccording to Marx, the simple articulation o# a society to a capitalist market does not immediately yield abstract labor as its social precipitate" In hat is no the appendix to volume H o# Capital, Marx distinguishes bet een the #ormal and the real subsumption o# societies into capital" In conditions o# #ormal subsumption, capital subsumes the labor process as it #inds it, that is to say, it takes over an e istin! labor process, developed by di##erent and more archaic modes o# production 7H:8H;" In conditions o# real subsumption, capital back#orms the labor process, taking over it directly" -ormally subsumed societies produce capital #or capital, but capital has not reconstituted the entirety o# the

social" /ather, capital gloms onto given #orms o# production and simply extracts surplus* #ormally subsumed societies produce absolute surplus value, not relative surplus value" Chibber is a are o# this distinction, sort o#% he marks the #act that in the #ormally!subsumed colonial orld, the reliance on producing absolute surplus made capitalism highly coercive and violent, hereas in the advanced orld DsicE the dominance o# relative surplus value caused a s itch to less personali)ed and less violent modes o# value creation and extraction 7HHI;" $ are that capitalism maintains and 7re;produces #orms o# production it #inds to hand, Chibber criti<ues the subalternists #or re#using to reali)e that capitalism does 6ust that, suggesting that their anti!Marxism derives #rom their assumption that capitalism only takes the #orm it takes in societies here relative surplus production reigns" "ut he refuses to mark the !ap between societies producin! absolute and societies producin! relative surplus value as inde ical of a fissure between formal and real subsumption"

&his is key, inso#ar as Marxs theori)ation o# this gap sho s that capital a; doesnt universali)e hole hog, all at once and that b; the <uotidian social epistemology called abstract labor that the market disseminates is a territoriali)ed phenomenon" Indeed, Marx describes at length in volume I o# Capital ho certain modes o# bookkeeping only become available ithin conditions o# real subsumption" In my o n research on plantation accountancy, Ive uncovered a bunch o# planters ho desperately want to be capitalist, but cant be* the markets uneven territoriali)ation and subsumption o# the globe inhibits some tryhard capitalists #rom adopting the common metric o# abstract labor" Bven as capital globali)es, it auto!delimits its universality 7c#" all o# orld systems theory;" It is not mysti#ication to suggest that abstract labor is an improper analytic #or the relation bet een capital and laborers in a given )one o# the orld!system hen the abstraction o# those diverse labors into calculable values takes place beyond the boundary o# an epistemic divide" -or most plantations or #arms producing colonial exports, abstraction as a retroaction, a #act that inhibited capital accounting, prevented the optimal disposal o# variable capital, and led to cra)y crises o# overproduction" $bstraction happened in another time and place(in .ondon or +lasgo , say, months a#ter the produce had been harvested and shipped(and colonial capitalists could only reckon ith their production through abstraction months a#ter their produce had been moneti)ed and reali)ed on the market" &he one thing most colonial capitalists kne is that they could not operate like the ideal!typical #irm that undergirds Chibbers analysis" &o suggest, as Chibber does, that the universali)ation o# capital consists simply in a drive to intensi#y surplus extraction reduces the material di##erentiation bet een #orms o# surplus extraction to a contingent accident, and thus discounts the ay in hich the capacity o# this drive to reali)e itsel# is pre#ormed by structural!material conditions" Instead o# a Marxian account, in other ords, e get a Weberian one"

I# capital universali)es, this universali)ation is an uneven tendency, not an accomplished #act" &his point has extremely important practical and theoretical e##ects" An one hand, as suggested, it means that capitalist rationality materially trans#orms depending on a societys mode o# articulation to capital" &he globali)ation o# capital implies not its universali)ation but its striation(this is a Marxist, and indeed Marxs, thesis" An the other hand, this striation o# capitals globality impacts the labor process, labors relation to capital, and the modes

through hich resistance can take place" -ormally subsumed societies contain a great deal o# socialities that are de#ective #or capitalism" &heir modes o# resistance are not reducible to capital and, indeed, hat the underclasses o# such societies resist is not necessarily structurally or phenomenologically identical to it" $s Marx recogni)ed as early as the #rundrisse 7in his brie# discussion o# post!emancipation 0amaica; and as late as his ritings on /ussian peasant communities, these #orms!o#!li#e can be sei)ed by underclasses and potentiated as sites o# resistance to capital" @ut this is already pointing us in the direction o# a criti<ue o# Chibbers second universalism, that o# labor"

The Universalism of $abor Chibbers most use#ul, genuinely Marxist claim is that emergent bourgeoisies have no interest in extending or disseminating democratic #reedoms to orking classes" &he extension o# bourgeois rights is not the act o# a revolutionary bourgeoisie% there is, in #act, no such thing as a revolutionary bourgeoisie" /ather, as Chibber discusses in his overvie o# the historiography o# the Bnglish and -rench /evolutions, orking classes pushed the revolution into directions it ould not go, producing and sei)ing the bourgeois #reedoms that Whiggish histories ish to see as a gi#t besto ed by anti#eudal capitalists" 7&his as, o# course, C./ 0ames take on the 1aitian /evolution in The "lack Jacobins, a text and an historical example that Chibber does not(and cannot(cite"; $ccording to Chibber, the subalternists misrecogni)e the ordinary relation o# capitalism to the political 7i"e", capitalisms desire to restrict the )one o# state rights and #reedoms to the #e ; and so consider the dynamics o# Indian postcoloniality 7 here a condition o# dominance ithout hegemony, or capitalism ithout an extension o# rights, reigns; to be a re#utation o# the general dynamics posited by Marxist theory" More importantly, by pegging the extension o# rights and #reedoms to an emergent bourgeoisie, the subalternists analytic ga)e #ixates on that bourgeoisie, on its successes and #ailures, and ignores the sel#!activity o# the subaltern classes" Most importantly, by pegging capitalism to a regime o# rights and by asserting that Indian capitalists #ailed to extend these rights to subalterns, the subalternists ere able to posit the existence o# a separation bet een the idioms o# bourgeois politics 7 ith its investment in rights, #reedoms, and interests; and that o# subaltern politics" $ccording to Chibber, subalternists mobili)ed this separation not4simply to urge us to recogni)e and respect the political content o# insurgencies but also to call #or a displacement o# the #oundational concepts #or political analyses 7H>K;" &he subalternists, in other ords, stick too close to the particularist content o# subaltern politics and, in so doing, attempt to complicate 7or displace, #or Chibber; the universalist concepts proposed by Western theories o# politics 7H>K;"

Ance again, then, Chibbers criticism #unctions by demoting a particularist content to the status o# a contingent accident and by reasserting the explanatory po er o# a #ormal, universalist concept" Chibber is indeed allergic to thinking #rom the particular, resistant to the kind o# close hermeneutic engagement it necessitates" 7&his allergy to close reading bleeds into his o n reading practice o# the subalternists" In a block <uote o# Chatter6ee on H>=, he gives a snarky DsicE a#ter encountering a &here in the text, as i# Chatter6ee should have ritten &heir" &he anaphor o# the term in <uestion is the consciousness o# a rebellious

peasantry, a term in the singular that is marking out an analytic space and thus, in #act, to be re#erenced ith &here" $ ill to critici)e makes one a bad reader indeed4; &o the particularist, hermeneutically sensitive accounts o# collective peasant consciousness o##ered by Chatter6ee, or #actory orker consciousness o##ered by Chakrabarty, Chibber opposes the idea, central to the Bnlightenment tradition o# interests, o# common interests that are superordinate to the particularist contents through hich they are orked out" 1e ill also call them universal interests" .ets ignore the #act that, at least since 'pino)a, the common has been distinguished #rom the universal" .ets look instead at the polemical ork to hich these universalGcommon interests are put"

Chibber #irst asserts the importance o# these universal interests through his criticism o# Chatter6ees ork on peasant consciousness" $ccording to Chibber, Chatter6ee valori)es the collective, communal consciousness o# peasants, #or hom community attains a #oundational status in peasant psychology 7H>K;" DIEn cases o# peasant action, Chibber glosses, interests are replaced by duty and obligation% the sovereign individual o# Western theories are replaced by the community 7HL:;" -or Chibber, this assertion simply reinscribes, in Arientalist #ashion, the essentialist di##erence posited bet een 7again; Bast and West* &he West is the site o# the bounded individual, hile the Bast is the repository o# Community 7HLH;" Chibbers solution is to deny the possibility o# any #orm o# di##erence and simply assert the universal reign o# the bounded individual, one ho struggles to reali)e his best interests" .et the pope remain, as Marx might say, but make everybody pope" Chibber then reveals that all peasant political activity can be deduced through individual peasant interests"

$ Marxist ill have three problems ith Chibbers claims" -irst, Chibber #or some reason simply assumes and asserts that Marxism is an Bnlightenment philosophy(a claim hich sits oddly beside, say, An the 0e ish Muestion or 3otebook M o# the #rundrisse" Marxism is a criti%ue o# the Bnlightenment* it moves through it to open it up in ne ays, ays that point beyond it" 'econd, Chibber #or some reason thinks that Marxism o##ers a transhistorical, transgeographic analytic o# the political premised on individuals interests, entirely ignoring Marxs #ulminations against the /obinsonade o# Bnlightenment philosophy" &here is, really truly, no theory o# individual action derivable #rom Marxs texts" 1e as a /icardian, not a marginalist% a critic o# the Bnlightenments sovereign individual, not its culminating thinker" &he interests that Marx discusses are al ays class interests" &hird, Chibber ants to collapse the distinction bet een individual as unit o# analysis and individual as one person, body, and interest" Its only in this ay that he can read Chatter6ee as i# the latter claims that all peasants are stupid and blind to their interests" @ut even i# e think that interest is a meaning#ul analytic through hich to come to grips ith peasant rebellion, it is by no means clear that the individual ho has actionable interests is identical to a single human being" Chayanovian approaches to peasant economies have long suggested that the household is the proper individual o# the economic orld o# peasants, and thus the proper unit o# economic analysis #or peasant economies" &his isnt to deny that the individual human beings composing this household do not have dreams, ideas, desires, and something that might be legible as interests to us% it is to claim that such dreams, desires, and interests

become thinkable and actionable through the material, econonomic, and political unit o# the household"

Chibber ants to get rid o# this complexity and reduce the individual unit o# analysis to an embodied individual so as to reduce political interest to need, to physical ell!being 78:8;" Bveryone you kno has a body, a#ter all" Brgo, it is the universal #undament o# political interest% indeed, politics begins through an assault on the body, hen capitalist domination generates palpable harm to orkers physical integrity 78:I;" Chibber then de#ines physical ell!being as #reedom #rom dangerous orking conditions, poverty!level ages, high mortality, ill health, environmental ha)ards, and so on4 78:I;" Ane onders hat the so on covers" Im illing to bet, though, that i# e dre a portrait o# this universal body o# the orker, he might look a lot like me* a hite male ith the normal bodily capacities ascribed to human beings" @ut the universality o# the body is #ractured by material particularisms(by race, by gender, by disability(that cannot be subsumed into a #ormal, superordinate set o# real needs" &o take the raciali)ation or gendering o# bodies seriously is not simply to respect di##erence, in some multiculti ay% rather, it is to grasp the #act that di##erential bodily materiali)ations yield ne and particular needs that produce ne modes o# thinking and accessing universality" What I hear in Chibbers ork is the old re#rain used to silence #eminists, <ueers, and race radicals* $#ter the revolution, ell #ix that right up" Nndeterred, #eminists, <ueers, and race radicals began their o n revolutions, they thought #reedom #rom the ay in hich their particulari)ed bodies ere articulated to social structure, and did #ar more radical ork 7in the 'tates, at least; than 89I= 'talinist sects" &he radical Marxists( the real materialists(took note" 7&here as, o# course, signi#icant overlap bet een these populations";

,olitical rationalities and their idioms shi#t according to the modes by hich a social #ormation is articulated to capital" &hese idioms are not accidental, contingent, or reducible to mere content% rather, they materially express an insurgent relation to capital, even hen they do not 6ive ith the grammar o# rational interest that primes some anti!capitalist politics" &o not pay attention to the speci#icity o# these idioms(to reduce them to a universalism or to transcode them into Bnlightenment talk(is to court disaster"

Im not going to go into his criticisms o# Chakrabarty% Ive already been going on #or too long" &hey #ollo the same line" Chibber ants to save Marxism #rom postcolonialisms assault% he ends up trans#orming Marxism into an abstract, #ormalist, anti!materialist hot mess o# Bnlightenment 6ibber!6abber"

&hy' &hy' &hy' I# youre like me, youre ondering* Why as this even rittenC $#ter all, Chibbers story is a t ice 7or thrice; told tale" When have Marxists not assailed postcolonial studies #or not being Marxist enoughC Moreover, his dramatic intervention is a bit belated" 1e invests postcolonial theory ith an institutional clout it has not possessed #or some years" Within the

N"'" intellectual scene, myriad con#erences, special issues o# 6ournals, and books have declared the demise o# postcolonial studies% in literature departments across the nation, hiring lines that once ould have been postcolonial positions have increasingly become $nglophone or +lobal Bnglish 6obs" 7,erhaps things are di##erent in Chibbers #ield o# sociology, but I doubt it"; I mysel# dont identi#y as a postcolonialist(not 6ust because, period! ise, Im more properly described as a colonialist, but because I identi#y primarily as a Caribbeanist" 7&his might have something to do ith the old, old tendency to put 'outh $sian theory and history at the center o# postcolonial theory, as Chibber does"; 'o, hats at stakeC

In part, I think that Marxism versus postcolonial theory is simply running inter#erence #or a set o# disciplinary battles over methodological and theoretical orientation" &he antinomy that Chibber continually establishes is one bet een a realist sociology 7 ith an investment in abstract structures that prime and cause human action; and hermeneutically inclined #ields o# anthropology, history, and literary studies" 7Oont mention literary studies to Chibber" 1e doesnt seem to like it very much"; In each o# Chibbers chapters, the explanatory triumph o# universalist accounts over particularist accounts can be read as the triumph o# a certain #orm o# sociological reason over its others"

More importantly, I think that Chibber is desperate #or the resurgence o# a particular kind o# Marxism, one that as displaced not by postcolonial theorists but by anticolonial Marxists like -anon, 0ames, and so on" &hats hy he cant incorporate them into his account o# postcolonial theory* they are Marxists ho mount criti<ues o# #ormalist universalisms by keeping close to the particular, by maintaining the tension that obtains bet een economic structure and lived phenomenology, bet een structuralist accounts o# the orld and hermeneutic investigations into orlds" I have no idea hy one ould ish to return to the days o# C, sloganeering" 7I cant be the only one ho heard echoes o# black and hite, unite and #ightP in his book"; @ut the desire is there, and it shapes the ay he constructs postcolonial theory" Chibbers #antasy that an anti!Marxist postcolonial theory reigns hegemonic in the academy enables him to maintain the #antasy that the once and #uture king o# Marxism might some day be restored to rule" @ut, in order to elaborate this #antasy, he needs to trans#orm a tension internal to postcolonial theory 7bet een Marxist accounts o# structure and hermeneutic approaches to the particular( hich can still be, o# course, Marxist; into a struggle exterior to it"

@ut i# Marxism regains a position o# prominence in the N' academy(and I hope it does(it no doubt not be Chibbers brand o# Marxism" Chibber rightly locates the conditions o# possibility #or a Marxist resurgence in the academy in social movements beyond its alls" $s he notes in his intervie , until e get the kind o# movements that buoyed Marxism in the early years a#ter World War I, or in the late H9L:s and early H9K:s, you ont see a change" 1e ignores the #act, ho ever, that a vibrant N"'" social movement did 6ust take place in the #orm o# Accupy(a di##use movement that dre on the idioms o# anarchism, liberalism, and certain #orms o# Marxism" 5et, because this movement did not limit itsel# to the kinds o# things that Marxists used to talk about in the good old days, Chibber doesnt mention it* it is

not #unctional #or buoying a rigorously restrictive Marxism" In good vanguardist #ashion, he notes the e##ectivity o# such social movements only to dismiss them* the social movements adopt an idiom o# anti!oppression that he claims is incompatible ith a consideration o# class exploitation" It takes a Marxist o# a special kind to discount the radical potentials immanent to a movement #rom the bottom, a special kind o# Marxist ho ants to pulveri)e the textured phenomenology o# social li#e into the universality o# class" Indeed, Chibbers Marxism ill never regain its position o# hegemony because Marxism has already beyond the narro hori)on by hich he bounds it" &he Marxism #ashionable both inside and outside the academy today is that Marxism hich has learned to meet people here they are, that has learned that a caring approach to particularity and a concern to #oster di##erence is not opposed to the universal but is, rather, one ay o# producing ne universals, o# reali)ing #reer modes o# being in common" Indeed, the Marxism #ashionable today is that Marxism hich has taken postcolonial theory as a serious incitement, as a spur to think critically about its o n de#icits but also as a challenge to uncover its hidden possibilities" It is a Marxism that has #oregone the #antasy!laden drama o# polemic in #avor o# the open rhythm o# criti<ue and auto!criti<ue" $s +ayatri 'pivak once rote, Marx keeps moving #or a Marxist as the orld moves 7LK;" &hrough the ork o# riters such as 'pivak, postcolonial theory has moved with Marx, and Marxism too has kept up"

Its only the Marxists ho have #allen behind" DBOI&* My response to ,aul 1eidemanQs criticisms o# me" IQm keeping it here so as to limit the amount o# posts and to re#rain #rom the drama o# response G counter!response etc" -ight capitalism not each other and all that"E ::O 1i ,aul, thank you #or taking the time to respond to my post, especially because, as you say, it deserves none o# the attention it has received" I as raised Catholic, so being in#ormed that Im not deserving o# anyones regard is nothing too ne (it only ampli#ies my gratitude to my readers and to you" I admire the passion behind your ords, ,aul, but I #ear youve #undamentally misread me" I also #ear that you #ail to respond to my primary <uestion* I# Chibber o##ers a Marxist criticism o# subaltern studies, hat kind o# Marxism provides Chibber the epistemological and political #oundation o# his attackC My aim, then, as not to de#end the subalternists #rom Chibber" ,artha Chatter6ee, Oipesh Charkrabarty, and all the rest are more than competent to do that themselves" My aim as to de#end Marxism #rom being, once more, de#ined as a universalist theory that reduces particularity to an accident, a contingency, or something to strip a ay so that the pure body o# universality might appear" My silence on aspects o# Chibbers arguments against the subalternists in no ay amounts to a concession, any more than your silence on many substantive aspects o# my reply amounts to one" 'o, point by point*

I turned to Marxs analytic o# #ormal and real subsumption in order to demonstrate that, #or Marx, capital constitutively )ones its universality" ,articularity does not simply be#all it as an accident or as something it picks up, makes due ith, or reproduces as an e##ect o# its universali)ing drive" &his, to you, might sound like Chibbers argument that labor is not

homogenous(a claim that I marked in the text as correct" I as interested, ho ever, in pegging the heterogeneity o# labor to the striated ay in hich capital itsel# globali)es" &he blocking o# capitals globali)ation is a moment immanent to capital itsel#* capital blocks itsel# and blocks itsel# o##, )ones itsel# into regions o# the orld!system" It as not a <uestion #or me, then, o# sho ing that abstract labor is al ays concreted and concretely di##erentiated, a speci#ic and particular body riven by #orms o# di##erence, as Chibber argues and as I agree" Making that claim is already to look at labor #rom the vantage o# real subsumption" My aim as to sho that Marx creates space to think about particularity #rom the hori)on o# an abstraction that has not happened, or that only happens in an epistemic else here" I as arguing that it is simply misleading to say that capital universali)es hen the apparent unity o# the unit is a territoriali)ed perception and a territorially di##erentiated structure" -or me, capitalism is globali)ation ithout universali)ation"

Ill engage your third point next and <uickly" 5ou, <uite simply, chastise me #or laying out the architecture o# a theoretical #rame ork and than extrapolating conse<uences #rom that theoretical position" I as not imagining hat Chibber might rite, I asnt trying to get into his head" I ouldnt presume, and Im sure there are lovely thoughts in there" I as simply extending the conse<uences o# a theoretical position, demonstrating hat this position makes thinkable and unthinkable, seeing hat is possible to think #rom the perspective o# this position" &hats hat critical thinking is* unpacking assumptions an argument makes and determining their theoretical e##ects"

@esides(and to address your second point(its some hat contradictory #or you to excoriate me #or seeing something in a text that isnt explicitly there hile simultaneously congratulating Chibber #or his indi##erence to Marxs o n theoretical text in #avor o# some amorphous but certain version o# the Marxist tradition, a tradition that #orms the epistemic #oundation #or his argument" Well talk about that in a second" @ut, ,aul, you critici)e me #or saying Chibber critici)es the subalternists #or not being Marxist enough, only to suggest that he in #act critici)es them #or re6ectDingE this legacy o# Marxist thought" In short, I said he critici)es them #or not being Marxist enough% you say he critici)es them #or not being Marxist at all" -air enough" $ll o# hich returns me to my main point* What Marxism primes Chibbers criticismC Its not, by your o n admission and Chibbers, one derived #rom Marx" Its some vague but certain tradition" .ike I said, I as raised Catholic, and I think that escaping the magisterium o# the church has turned me into a kind o# sola scriptura guy(I cant take the authoritative claims to the authority o# a tradition as meaning anything" 'o, please, 6ust name the tradition"

$s I argued, I dont think you can" Chibbers Marxist tradition is standing in #or t o other traditions* the Bnlightenment 7but hich oneC; and a certain kind o# Weberian sociology" $ll o# that is #ine, I guess" 0ust stop trying to sei)e the sign o# Marxism to pass o## theoretical positions that are decidedly not Marxist" 'top using the sign o# Marxism to castigate a #ield o# kno ledge that, hile decidedly possessing its o n problems, can in #act enrich and thicken Marxism and Marxist, anti!capitalist politics"

&hanks againP

Poste# &y C!ris Taylor at 393E PM

34 comments&
louisproyect sai#%%%

Than&s, )hris ( ha e big problems with any R#ar'istR criticism that ma&es someone li&e Edward +aid loo& counter-re olutionary.
April ?A, 3A*? at ,9*? AM

louisproyect sai#%%%

Than&s, )hris ( ha e big problems with any R#ar'istR criticism that ma&es someone li&e Edward +aid loo& counter-re olutionary.
April ?A, 3A*? at ,9*? AM

Lulian <o sai#%%%

+pot on: Than&s for this

May *, 3A*? at E93- AM

Ale sai#%%%

-ou ha e Rbig problemsR in general.

May 3, 3A*? at @9@, AM

Sein(eist sai#%%%

Than& so much for writing this sorely needed piece. To place )hibberLs wor& in a genealogy--his boo&, of course, follows in the footprints of 1i%a! 1hmadLs (n Theory, where 1hmad had ta&en up cudgel against Edward +aid, Rana%it 9uha, and the li&es. "hate er reser ations one might ha e had about 1hmadLs criti*ue--and criti*ue it was, in the sense that you point out--it was a substanti e engagement, a spirited maneu er in orthodo' #ar'ist criticism. 1hmad is a good LtheologianL in the tradition of scholars and acti ists all o er the world who approach and appropriate #ar' with theological !eal and !est--un*uestioned faith in the 8oo&, a owed loyalty to the ,ame, etc. )hibber, or at least his latest submission, is more in the ein of a harangue deli ered by a +outhern 8aptist minister of the Orthodo' #ar'ist )hurch. He has none of 1hmadLs style and panache in polemics that made (n Theory an engaging read whate er oneLs ideological orientation. -our re iew does a great %ob of e'posing this demagoguery--*uite a pre alent one in present climes, ( must say, regardless of geographicalHnational locations--where the supposed mutual e'clusi ity of #ar'ist and 3ostcolonial theories @both immensely ariegated within, but who cares7A has been ele ated to the position of sacrosanct truth. Than&s again.
May 3, 3A*? at H9@A AM

Anonymous sai#%%%

(Lm not sure what ( find more disappointing0 TaylorLs blog post or the subse*uent comments, which fail to correctly read or perhaps purposely misreading )hibberLs boo&. HeidemanLs response pro ides a nice antidote. http0HHwww. ersoboo&s.comHblogsH;J<K-not-e en-mar'ist-paul-m-heidemane'amines-chris-taylor-s-criti*ue-of- i e&-chibber
May 3, 3A*? at +9E? AM

Anonymous sai#%%%

( would li&e to see the author respond to HeidemanLs criti*ue.

May 3, 3A*? at ,9@, PM

Anonymous sai#%%%

The contrast with 1hmad is useful. 1hmadLs criticisms were based on careful, detailed, nuanced readings of his antagonists. ( disagree with them, but you can learn from them, and they are scholarly. )hibber writes reducti ely and egotistically. He openly proceeds not to discuss but to annihilate. ?or his part Taylor does not respond

by rereading 9uha or )hibberLs other targets. He responds with a counter-polemic competing for #ar'ian territory. This is all unreliable and flash in the pan.
May 3, 3A*? at +9E3 PM

Anonymous sai#%%%

R(Lm not sure what ( find more disappointing0 TaylorLs blog post or the subse*uent comments, which fail to correctly read or perhaps purposely misreading )hibberLs boo&.R (Lm not sure which ( find more disappointing - the passi e aggression or the smugness$ Nboth of whichO fail to correctly read or perhaps purposely misreading TaylorLs 3ost. +eriously though, you can offer criticism without being incredibly condescending - a hint of intellectual humility would ha e gone a long way. ( donLt ha e a dog in this fight @yetA$ ( ha enLt read )hibber myself, but (Lm already predisposed to disli&e him if these are partisans.
May ?, 3A*? at @9?? AM

Anonymous sai#%%%

1 ery magnanimous response, )hris, considering the fundamental snideness and tendentiousness of HeidemanLs Rcriti*ue.R
May ?, 3A*? at E9AA PM

centime sai#%%%

( lo e this re iew of )hibberLs boo&. ( wish ( had written it.

May E, 3A*? at +9*H AM

Anonymous sai#%%%

)hris, you wrote0 5The most ob ious problem with )hibber/s argument is the representati eness he ascribes to the +outh 1sian +ubaltern +tudies collecti e4for )hibber, they epitomi!e postcolonial theory in all its anti-#ar'ist glory. The second most ob ious problem with )hibber/s argument is his refusal to count as constituti e of postcolonial theory all anticolonial #ar'ist thin&ers whose wor& was foundational for, or retroacti ely incorporated into, the postcolonial canon0 9eorge 3admore, ?rant! ?anon, ).2.R. Eames, #ao, Ho )hi #inh, Iwame ,&rumah, 1milcar )abral,

"alter Rodney.6 These may be important criticisms, but the e'tent to which they are an 5ob ious problem6 is not clear simply because you ha e declared them to be so. ?or you to imply that subaltern studies is actually not representati e of postcolonial theory in a way that is analytically or empirically meaningful to )hibber/s pro%ect or that the inclusion of the writings of certain anticolonial #ar'ist thin&ers would otherwise undermine )hibber/s argument is merely an assertion on your part. ?or it to be an argument and a compelling one at that these assertions must be e'plained. #oreo er, you ha e completely ignored )hibber/s *uite e'plicit e'planation for why he chose this particular method of analysis, i.e., how he came to the conclusion that subaltern studies was sufficiently representati e of postcolonial theory to pro ide an ade*uate basis of e'amination for postcolonial theory. (n other words, he doesn/t claim that subaltern studies and postcolonial theory are the same thing in e ery respect. (ndeed, his pro%ect doesn/t re*uire them to be the same in e ery respect. )hibber/s point of departure is that the particular theoretical elements of subaltern studies that he e'amines are common to postcolonial theory, and it is in this respect that subaltern studies is representati e of postcolonial theory. +o, if you belie e that these particular claims by )hibber are wrong, you need to e'plain why. To dismiss his claims without doing so appears defensi e and partisan and intended to stir a similar emotional response among your readers rather than e'posing the intellectual failings of )hibber/s boo&. 3. Iershaw
May @, 3A*? at -9*H AM

Anonymous sai#%%%

-ou ha e not actually said anything of substance here. -our comment is merely an emotion laden attempt to poison the well.
May @, 3A*? at +9AH AM

Anonymous sai#%%%

( am %ust reading this criti*ue and without ha ing read )hibberLs boo& ( appreciate it immensely -- both on its own ery clear terms and in terms of the robust position it occupies in a longstanding intellectual struggle against a certain species of R#ar'ism.R E en though many of us ha e simply mo ed on to our own pro%ects, not wanting to be robbed of any more time and history, it is still a battle that needs to be waged. Than& you )hris.

2Postcolonial Criticism2 )*++3., 4omi 5% 6!a&!a