Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths & Helen Tiffin: The Empire writes back.

Theory and Practice in Postcolonial Literatures.

Londres, Routledge, 1989, 246 p.

Extraits

Le concept et la thorie
Quest-ce que les littratures post-coloniales?
This book is concerned with writing by those peoples for erly coloni!ed by "rit#in, though uch of wh#t it de#ls with is of interest #nd rele$#nce to countries coloni!ed by other %urope#n powers, such #s &r#nce, 'ortug#l, #nd (p#in. The se #ntic b#sis of the ter )post*coloni#l) ight see to suggest # concern only with the n#tion#l culture #fter the dep#rture of the i peri#l power. +t h#s occ#sion#lly been e ployed in so e e#rlier work in the #re# to distinguish between the periods before #nd #fter independence ,-coloni#l period) #nd )post*coloni#l period)., for e/# ple, in constructing n#tion#l liter#ry histories, or in suggesting co p#r#ti$e studies between st#ges in those histories. 0ener#lly spe#king, though, the ter -coloni#l) h#s been used for the period before independence #nd # ter indic#ting # n#tion#l writing, such #s - odern 1#n#di#n writing) or -recent 2est +ndi#n liter#ture) h#s been e ployed to distinguish the period #fter independence. 2e use the ter -post*coloni#l), howe$er, to co$er #ll the culture #ffected by the i peri#l process fro the o ent of coloni!#tion to the present d#y. This is bec#use there is # continuity of preoccup#tions throughout the historic#l process initi#ted by %urope#n i peri#l #ggression. 2e #lso suggest th#t it is ost #ppropri#te #s the ter for the new cross*cultur#l criticis which h#s e erged in recent ye#rs #nd for the discourse through which this is constituted. +n this sense this book is concerned with the world #s it e/ists during #nd #fter the period of %urope#n i peri#l do in#tion #nd the effects of this on conte por#ry liter#tures.

(o the liter#tures of 3fric#n countries, 3ustr#li#, "#ngl#desh, 1#n#d#, 1#ribbe#n countries, +ndi#, 4#l#ysi#, 4#lt#, 5ew 6e#l#nd, '#kist#n, (ing#pore, (outh '#cific +sl#nd countries, #nd (ri L#nk# #re #ll post*coloni#l liter#tures. The liter#ture of the 7(3 should #lso be pl#ced in this c#tegory. 'erh#ps bec#use of its current position of power, #nd the neo*coloni!ing role it h#s pl#yed, its post*coloni#l n#ture h#s not been gener#lly recogni!ed. "ut its rel#tionship with the etropolit#n centre #s it e$ol$ed o$er the l#st two centuries h#s been p#r#dig #tic for post*coloni#l liter#tures e$erywhere. 2h#t e#ch of these liter#tures h#s in co on beyond their speci#l #nd distincti$e region#l ch#r#cteristics is th#t they e erged in their present for out of the e/perience of coloni!#tion #nd #sserted the sel$es by foregrounding the tension with the i peri#l power, #nd by e ph#si!ing their differences fro the #ssu ptions of the i peri#l centre. +t is this which #kes the distincti$ely post*coloni#l. ,pp. 1*2..

ustification !u ter"e#
8ne of the first difficulties in de$eloping # wider co p#r#ti$e #ppro#ch to the liter#tures h#s been th#t of finding #n #ppropri#te, n# e to describe the . (o e e#rly #tte pts #t # n# e which indic#ted the world*wide r#nge of %nglish writing ne$er found gener#l #ccept#nce9 for e/# ple, :oseph :ones)s word ;terr#ngli#<, which he e ployed to describe #ll writing in english throughout the world ,:ones 196=.. The ter )1o onwe#lth liter#ture) which #lso e erged in the 196>s, #lthough it secured uch re#dier #ccept#nce, ne$ertheless h#d geogr#phic#l #nd politic#l li it#tions. +t rested purely on the f#ct of # sh#red history #nd the resulting politic#l grouping. +n its loosest for it re #ined # descripti$e ter for # collection of n#tion#l liter#tures united by # p#st or present e bership of the "ritish 1o onwe#lth. "ut through its rel#ti$ely widespre#d #ccept#nce it opened the w#y for ore rigorous concep* tions which #lso postul#ted # co on condition #cross #ll for er colonies. &or # long while these e/isted, or coe/isted, if so eti es une#sily, under the u brell# of -1o onwe#lth liter#ture). (e$er#l #tte pts h#$e been #de to find # politic#lly #nd theoretic#lly ore #ppropri#te n# e for such liter#tures th#n ;1o onwe#lth liter#ture< ,see Tiffin 198?.. The li ited #nd pe@or#ti$e ter -Third 2orld liter#tures) h#s been used in so e uni$ersity courses, but the ost popul#r contenders h#$e been )new liter#tures in %nglish) #nd, ost recently, )post*coloni#l liter#tures). 3lthough the first #$oids the inclusion of #ny reference to coloni#lis , #nd therefore #y be ore #ccept#ble n#tion#lists wishing to de*e ph#si!e the coloni#l p#st, it is $#gue #nd isle#ding in other w#ys, i plicitly pri$ileging # %urope#n perspecti$e in #re#s like +ndi# or 3fric#, #nd pro$iding theoretic#l direction or co p#r#ti$e fr# ework. +t #lso h#s the dis#d$#nt#ge th#t it co p#res the liter#tures to ;old< liter#ture in %nglish, without #lluding to the hege onic power of the "ritish tr#dition. The ter ;coloni#l liter#tures< ight focus on wh#t is sh#red the writing #nd therefore suggest the direction in which to proceed theoretic#lly, but the connot#tions of the ter #re politic#lly un#ccept#ble to territories which h#$e g#ined their independence. )'ost*coloni#l) see s to be the choice which both e br#ces the historic#l re#lity #nd focuses on th#t rel#tionship which h#s pro$ided the ost i port#nt cre#ti$e #nd psychologic#l i petus in the writing. 3lthough it does not specify th#t the discourse is li ited to works in english, it

does indic#te the r#tion#le of the grouping in # co on p#st #nd hints #t the $ision of # ore liber#ted #nd positi$e future. +n pr#ctic#l ter s, the description we #dopt * )post*coloni#l) * is less restricti$e th#n )1o onwe#lth)A it sh#res with )new liter#tures in %nglish) the #bility to include, for e/# ple, the english liter#ture of the 'hilippines or of the 7nited (t#tes #s well #s th#t of )p#keh#) ,white. or 4#ori writing in 5ew 6e#l#nd, or th#t of both "l#cks #nd whites in (outh 3fric#. Bowe$er, the ter )post*coloni#l liter#tures) is fin#lly to be preferred o$er the others bec#use it points the w#y tow#rds # possible study of the effects of coloni#lis in #nd between writing in english #nd writing in indigenous l#ngu#ges in such conte/ts #s 3fric# #nd +ndi#, #s well #s writing in other l#ngu#ge di#spor#s ,&rench, (p#nish, 'ortuguese.. The liter#ture of +rel#nd ight #lso be in$estig#ted in ter s of our conte por#ry knowledge of post* coloni#lis , thus shedding new light on the "ritish liter#ry tr#dition. %$en so, better ter s #y still e erge. +n his co p#r#ti$e study of the liter#tures of Cuebec #nd the "l#ck di#spor#, Dorsin$ille, for e/# ple, used the ter )post* %urope#n). 3lthough this h#s not so f#r been used e/tensi$ely in critic#l #ccounts of the field its politic#l #nd theoretic#l i plic#tions h#$e uch to offer. ,pp. 2?*24..

Centre et priphrie
En$lish vs en$lish
Language 8ne of the #in fe#tures of i peri#l oppression is control o$er l#ngu#ge. The i peri#l educ#tion syste inst#lls # -st#nd#rd) $ersion of the etropolit#n l#ngu#ge #s the nor , #nd #rgin#li!es #ll -$#ri#nts) #s i purities. 3s # ch#r#cter in 4rs 1# pbell 'r#ed)s nineteenth*century 3ustr#li#n no$el 'olicy #nd '#ssion puts it, -To be coloni#l is to t#lk 3ustr#li#n sl#ngA to be ... e$erything th#t is #bo in#ble) ,1# pbell 'r#ed 188191=4..L#ngu#ge beco es the ediu through which # hier#rchic#l structure of power is perpetu#ted, #nd the ediu through which conceptions of -truth), -order), #nd -re#lity) beco e est#blished. (uch power is re@ected in the e ergence of #n effecti$e post* coloni#l $oice. &or this re#son, the discussion of post*coloni#l writing which follows is l#rgely # discussion of the process by which the l#ngu#ge, with its power, #nd the writing, with its signific#tion of #uthority, h#s been wrested fro the do in#nt %urope#n culture. +n order to focus on the co ple/ w#ys in which the %nglish l#ngu#ge h#s been used in these societies, #nd to indic#te their own sense of difference, we distinguish in this #ccount between the -st#nd#rd) "ritish %nglish inherited fro the e pire #nd the english which the l#ngu#ge h#s beco e in post*coloni#l countries. Though "ritish i peri#lis resulted in the spre#d of # l#ngu#ge, %nglish, #cross the globe, the english of :# #ic#ns is not the english of 1#n#di#ns, 4#oris, or Eeny#ns. 2e need to distinguish between wh#t is proposed #s # st#nd#rd code, %nglish ,the l#ngu#ge of the erstwhile i peri#l centre., #nd the linguistic code, english, which h#s been tr#nsfor ed #nd sub* $erted into se$er#l distincti$e $#rieties throughout the world. &or this re#son the distinction between %nglish #nd english will be used throughout our te/t #s #n

indic#tion of the $#rious w#ys in which the l#ngu#ge h#s been e ployed by different linguistic co unities in the post*coloni#l world.) The use of these ter s #sserts the f#ct th#t # continuu e/ists between the $#rious linguistic pr#ctices which constitute english us#ge in the odern world. 3lthough linguistic#lly the links between %nglish #nd the $#rious post*coloni#l englishes in use tod#y c#n be seen #s unbroken, the politic#l re#lity is th#t %nglish sets itself #p#rt fro #ll other -lesser) $#ri#nts #nd so de #nds to be interrog#ted #bout its cl#i to this speci#l st#tus. +n pr#ctice the history of this distinction between %nglish #nd english h#s been between the cl#i s of # powerful -centre) #nd # ultitude of intersecting us#ges design#ted #s -peripheries). The l#ngu#ge of these -peripheries) w#s sh#ped by #n oppressi$e discourse of power. Fet they h#$e been the site of so e of the ost e/citing #nd inno$#ti$e liter#tures of the odern period #nd this h#s, #t le#st in p#rt, been the result of the energies unco$ered by the politic#l tension between the ide# of # nor #ti$e code #nd # $#riety of region#l us#ges. ,p. G*8..

%"er$ence !e lAn$lais co""e !iscipline aca!"ique co&nci!e a'ec celle !e li"prialis"e colonial : (entre et )riphrie#
The historic#l o ent which s#w the e ergence of -%nglish) #s #n #c#de ic discipline #lso produced the nineteenth*century coloni#l for of i peri#lis ,"#tsleer et #l. 198=9 14, 19*2=.. 0#uri Hisw#n#th#n h#s presented strong #rgu ents for rel#ting the -institution#lis#tion #nd subseIuent $#loris#tion of %nglish liter#ry study JtoK # sh#pe #nd #n ideologic#l content de$eloped in the coloni#l conte/t), #nd specific#lly #s it de$eloped in +ndi#, where9
British colonial administrators, provoked by missionaries on the one hand and fears of native insubordination on the other, discovered an ally in English literature to support them in maintaining control of the natives under the guise of a liberal education.

,Hisw#n#th#n 198G9 17) +t c#n be #rgued th#t the study of %nglish #nd the growth of % pire proceeded fro # single ideologic#l cli #te #nd th#t the de$elop ent of the one is intrinsic#lly bound up with the de$elop ent of the other, both #t the le$el of si ple utility ,#s prop#g#nd# for inst#nce. #nd #t the unconscious le$el, where it le#ds to the n#tur#li!ing of constructed $#lues ,e.g. ci$ili!#tion, hu #nity, etc.. which, con$ersely, est#blished -s#$#gery), -n#ti$e), -pri iti$e), #s their #ntitheses #nd #s the ob@ect of # refor ing !e#l.) 3 -pri$ileging nor ) w#s enthroned #t the he#rt of the for #tion of %nglish (tudies #s # te pl#te for the deni#l of the $#lue of the -peripher#l), the - #rgin#l), the -unc#noni!ed). Liter#ture w#s #de #s centr#l to the cultur#l enterprise of % pire #s the on#rchy w#s to its politic#l for #tion. (o when ele ents of the periphery #nd #rgin thre#tened the e/clusi$e cl#i s of the centre they were r#pidly incorpor#ted. This w#s # process, in %dw#rd (#id)s ter s, of conscious #ffili#tion proceeding under the guise of fili#tion ,(#id 1984., th#t is, # i icry of the centre proceeding fro # desire not only to be #ccepted but to be #dopted #nd #bsorbed. +t c#used those fro the periphery to i erse the sel$es in the i ported culture, denying their origins in #n #tte pt to beco e - ore %nglish th#n the %nglish). 2e see e/# ples of this in such writers #s Benry :# es #nd T.(. %liot.

,p. ?*4..

%a !i'ersit priphrique contre lexotis"e

,L<e/otis e go e les diffLrences entre pLriphLries #u profit de celles #$ec le 1entre. Theories #nd odels of post*coloni#l liter#tures could not e erge until the sep#r#te colonies were $iewed in # fr# ework centred on their own liter#ry #nd cultur#l tr#ditions. Hictori#n "rit#in h#d e/ulted in the disp#r#teness of its e pire, but in representing th#t e pire predo in#ntly #s # site of the e/otic, of #d$enture #nd e/ploit#tion, it h#d defined it #s # contr#sti$e ele ent within the "ritish world*$iew. Differences between colonies were subordin#ted to their co on difference fro "rit#in. Thus the co p#r#ti$e gestures of @ourn#ls like Black and White ,1891*1911. which purported to @u/t#pose different colonies, ne$er esc#ped fro the etropolit#n*coloni#l #/is. 1oloni#l educ#tion syste s reinforced this #/is by pro$iding in*school -re#ders) ,for e/# ple, the Roy#l Re#der (eries in the 2est +ndies, or the Cueensl#nd Re#ders in 3ustr#li#. # nor #ti$e core of "ritish liter#ture, l#ndsc#pe, #nd history ,"rowning)s thoughts in e/ile, 2ordsworth)s d#ffodils, (ir 'hilip (idney)s chi$#lry. #nd # sprinkling of coloni#l #d$enture which often #sserted "ritish $#lues #g#inst # hostile physic#l or hu #n en$iron ent ,(t#nley)s e/plor#tions, 5ewbolt)s desper#te cricketers.. +t reIuired the #ggression of n#tion#list tr#ditions to bre#k this p#ttern of ine$it#ble reference to "rit#in #s # st#nd#rd #nd to pro$ide sp#ce for the consider#tion of the liter#ry #nd cultur#l p#tterns the colonies sh#red. Three princip#l types of co p#rison h#$e resulted, for ing b#ses for # genuine post*coloni#l discourse. These #re co p#risons between countries of the white di#spor# * the 7(3, 1#n#d#, 3ustr#li# #nd 5ew 6e#l#nd * co p#risons between #re#s of the "l#ck di#spor#, #nd, thirdly, those which bridge these groupings, co p#ring, s#y, liter#tures of the 2est +ndies with th#t of 3ustr#li#. ,p. 18*19.

*une criture te"porelle + une criture spatiale : "o!alits !e lh,-ri!e selon Ho"i Bha-ha et al#
Theories proposed by critics like Bo i "h#bh# #nd writers like 2ilson B#rris or %dw#rd "r#thw#ite proceed fro # consider#tion of the n#ture of post*coloni#l societies #nd the types of hybridi!#tion their $#rious cultures h#$e produced. +n uch %urope#n thinking, history, #ncestry, #nd the p#st for # powerful reference point for episte ology. +n post*coloni#l thought, howe$er, #s the 3ustr#li#n poet Les 4urr#y h#s s#id, ;ti e bro#dens into sp#ce) ,4urr#y 1969.. 2orks like :oseph &urphy)s Such is Life ,19>?., (#l #n Rushdie)s Midnight's hildren ,1981., 0.H. Des#ni)s !ll !bout ". "atterr ,1948., the no$els of 2ilson B#rris, #nd #ny othersA #ll deliber#tely set out to disrupt %urope#n notions of -history) #nd the ordering of ti e. 5o$els like '#trick 2hite)s #oss ,19=G., or poe seIuences like &r#ncis 2ebb)s -Eyre !ll !lone', 1961. or Leichhardt $n %heatre ,19=2. run %urope#n history #ground in # new #nd o$erwhel ing sp#ce which #nnihil#tes ti e #nd i peri#l purpose. Recei$ed history is t# pered with, rewritten, #nd re#ligned fro the point of $iew of the $icti s of its destructi$e progress. The s# e is true of R#@# R#o)s &anthapura ,19?8., H. (. Reid)s 'e( )ay ,1949., #nd Rudy 2eibe)s %he

%emptations of Big Bear ,19G?.. +n #ll these te/ts the perspecti$e ch#nges to th#t of the -8ther). Bo i "h#bh# h#s noted the collusion between n#rr#ti$e ode, history, #nd re#list i etic re#dings of te/ts. T#king H.(. 5#ip#ul)s ! "ouse for Mr Bis(as #s his e/# ple, "h#bh# de onstr#tes the d#ngers of the w#y in which re#dings of post*coloni#l works #s soci#lly #nd historic#lly i etic foster their re#bsorption into #n %nglish tr#dition, do estic#ting their r#dic#lis by ignoring the i port#nt coloni#l disruptions to the -%nglish) surf#ce of the te/t ,"h#bh# 1984#.. (i il#rly, the (t Luci#n poet, Derek 2#lcott, in his ess#y, -%he muse of history', t#kes issue with wh#t he reg#rds #s the 2est +ndi#n writer)s obsession with the destructions of the historic#l p#st, #nd #kes # ple# for #n esc#pe fro # prison of perpetu#l recri in#tions into the possibilities of # -historyless) world, where # fresh but not innocent -3d# ic) n# ing of pl#ce pro$ides the writer with ine/h#ustible #teri#l #nd the potenti#l of # new, but not n#i$e, $ision ,2#lcott 19G4b.. The 2est +ndi#n poet #nd histori#n %.E. "r#thw#ite proposes # odel which, while stressing the i port#nce of the need to pri$ilege the 3fric#n connection o$er the %urope#n, #lso stresses the ulti*cultur#l, syncretic n#ture of the 2est +ndi#n re#lity. (i il#rly, for the 0uy#nese no$elist #nd critic, 2ilson B#rris, cultures ust be liber#ted fro the destructi$e di#lectic of history, #nd i #gin#tion is the key to this. B#rris sees i #gin#ti$e esc#pe #s the #ncient #nd only refuge of oppressed peoples, but the i #gin#tion #lso offers possibilities of esc#pe fro the politics of do in#nce #nd subser$ience. 8ne of his ost i port#nt i #ges for this process is pro$ided by the folk ch#r#cter of 3n#ncy, the spider #n, fro 3k#n folklore. 3n#ncy c#n #nd does t#ke #ny for s in his tr#nspl#nted 2est +ndi#n setting, but for B#rris he pro$ides the key to #n i #gin#ti$e recrossing of the notorious -4iddle '#ss#ge) through which the sl#$es origin#lly crossed fro 3fric# to the 1#ribbe#n ,B#rris 19G>#9 8ffA see #lso "r#thw#ite 19G?916=*G.. The trickster ch#r#cter >f the spider #n, like the li bo -g#tew#y) of the 4iddle '#ss#ge, offers # n#rrow psychic sp#ce through which r#dic#l tr#nsfor #tion #y occur. 4i/ing p#st, present, future, #nd i peri#l #nd coloni#l cultures within his own fiction, B#rris deliber#tely stri$es #fter # new l#ngu#ge #nd # new w#y of seeing the world. This $iew re@ects the #pp#rently inesc#p#ble pol#rities >f l#ngu#ge #nd deploys the destructi$e energies of %urope#n culture in the ser$ice >f # future co unity in which di$ision #nd c#tegori!#tion #re no longer the b#ses of perception. +n %he Womb of Space ,198?. B#rris de onstr#tes the w#ys in which this philosophy c#n be used in the r#dic#l re#ding of te/ts, for, like :# eson, he is #ble to dr#w out the cre#ti$e ulticultur#l i pulses ine$it#bly present below the #pp#rently #nt#gonistic surf#ce structures of the te/t.) Bence, B#rris #rgues th#t #lthough, on the surf#ce, post*coloni#l te/ts #y de#l with di$isions of r#ce #nd culture which #re #pp#rently obdur#tely deter ined, e#ch te/t cont#ins the seeds of -co unity) which, #s they ger in#te #nd grow in the ind of the re#der, cr#ck #sunder the #pp#rently inesc#p#ble di#lectic of history. +n B#rris)s for ul#tion, hybridity in the present is const#ntly struggling to free itself fro # p#st which stressed #ncestry, #nd which $#lued the -pure) o$er its thre#tening opposite, the -co posite). +t repl#ces # te por#l line#lity with # sp#ti#l plur#lity. The co plic#tion of ti e eeting sp#ce in liter#ry theory #nd historiogr#phy, with its #ttend#nt cl#sh of the -pure) #nd the -hybrid), is well illustr#ted by the contr#dictions th#t h#$e #risen in the 1#n#di#n situ#tion. +n 1#n#d#, where the odel of the - os#ic) h#s been #n i port#nt cultur#l

deter in#nt, 1#n#di#n liter#ry theory h#s, in bre#king #w#y fro %urope#n do in#tion, gener#lly ret#ined # n#tion#list st#nce, #rguing for the os#ic #s ch#r#cteristic#lly 1#n#di#n in contr#st to the ) elting*pot) of the 7(3. "ut the intern#l perception of # os#ic h#s not gener#ted corresponding theories of liter#ry hybridity to repl#ce the n#tion#list #ppro#ch. 1#n#di#n liter#ture, percei$ed intern#lly #s # os#ic, re #ins gener#lly onolithic in its #ssertion of 1#n#di#n difference fro the c#nonic#l "ritish or the ore recently thre#tening neocoloni#lis of 3 eric#n culture.) 3ltern#ti$ely, it h#s stri$en for outside recognition by retre#ting fro the dyn# ics of difference into the neo*uni$ers#list intern#tion#list st#nce. 2here its #cute perception of cultur#l co ple/ity ight h#$e gener#ted # cli #te in which cross*n#tion#l or cross* cultur#l co p#r#ti$e studies would be pri$ileged, little work of this kind see s to h#$e been done. 'ost*coloni#l liter#ry theory, then, h#s begun to de#l with the proble s of tr#ns uting ti e into sp#ce, with the present struggling out of the p#st, #nd, like uch recent post*coloni#l liter#ture, it #tte pts to construct # future. The post*coloni#l world is one in which destructi$e cultur#l encounter is ch#nging to #n #ccept#nce of difference on eIu#l ter s. "oth liter#ry theorists #nd cultur#l histori#ns #re beginning to recogni!e cross*cultur#lity #s the potenti#l ter in#tion point of #n #pp#rently endless hu #n history of conIuest #nd #nnihil#tion @ustified by the yth of group -purity), #nd #s the b#sis on which the post*coloni#l world c#n be cre#ti$ely st#bili!ed. 5#tion#list #nd "l#ck criticis s h#$e de ystified the i peri#l processes of do in#tion #nd continuing hege ony, but they h#$e not in the end offered # w#y out of the historic#l #nd philosophic#l i p#sse. 7nlike these odels, the recent #ppro#ches h#$e recogni!ed th#t the strength of post*coloni#l theory #y well lie in its inherently co p#r#ti$e ethodology #nd the hybridi!ed #nd syncretic $iew of the odern world which this i plies. This $iew pro$ides # fr# ework of -difference on eIu#l ter s) within which ulti*cultur#l theories, both within #nd between societies, #y continue to be fruitfully e/plored. The $#rious odels by which te/ts #nd tr#ditions in postcoloni#l liter#tures #re discussed intersect #t # nu ber of points. Bowe$er, pl#ce is e/tre ely i port#nt in #ll the odels, #nd episte ologies h#$e de$eloped which pri$ilege sp#ce o$er ti e #s the ost i port#nt ordering concept of re#lity. +n the s# e w#y the poles of go$ernor*go$erned, ruler*ruled, etc. #re in$erted #nd the concept of do in#nce #s the princip#l regul#tor of hu #n societies is recogni!ed but ch#llenged. Likewise, l#ngu#ge loc#li!es #nd #ttr#cts $#lue #w#y fro # "ritish -nor ) e$entu#lly displ#cing the hege onic centr#lity of the ide# of -nor ) itself. &in#lly, the -double $ision) i posed by the historic#l distinction between etropolis #nd colony ensures th#t in #ll post*coloni#l cultures, onolithic perceptions #re less likely. ,p. ?4*?G.

Littrature et dpendance
%a .$ritu!e, a'atar !une philosophie occi!entale -inaire ?
Despite these Iu#lific#tions, r#ce*centred critiIues of "l#ck writing #nd of writing by %urope#ns #bout "l#ck societies h#$e been influenti#l within post* coloni#l discourse. The concept of 5Lgritude de$eloped by the 4#rtinic#n 3i L 1Ls#ire ,194=. #nd the (eneg#lese poet #nd politici#n Leopold (ed#r

(enghor ,(enghor 19GG. w#s the ost pronounced #ssertion of the distincti$e Iu#lities of "l#ck culture #nd identity. "ut in #king this #ssertion it #dopted stereotypes which curiously reflected %urope#n pre@udice. "l#ck culture, it cl#i ed, w#s e otion#l r#ther th#n r#tion#lA it stressed integr#tion #nd wholeness o$er #n#lysis #nd dissectionA it oper#ted by distincti$e rhyth ic #nd te por#l principles, #nd so forth. 5Lgritude #lso cl#i ed # distincti$e 3fric#n $iew of ti e*sp#ce rel#tionships, ethics, et#physics, #nd #n #esthetics which sep#r#ted itself fro the supposedly -uni$ers#l) $#lues of %urope#n t#ste #nd style. The d#nger w#s th#t, #s # result, it could e#sily be reincorpor#ted into # %urope#n odel in which it functioned only #s the #ntithesis oM the thesis of white supre #cy, # new -uni$ers#l) p#r#dig . 2ole (oyink# #kes precisely this point in his #n#lysis of 5Lgritude in Myth, Literature and the !frican World*
'+gritude, having laid its cornerstone on a European intellectual tradition, ho(ever bravely it tried to reverse its concepts ,leaving its tenets untouched-, (as a foundling deserving to be dra(n into, nay, even considered a case for benign adoption by European ideological interests.

,(oyink# 19G691?4. 3s (oyink# percei$es it, this is ine$it#ble gi$en th#t 5Lgritude e br#ces the essenti#l bin#ry n#ture of the western philosophic#l tr#dition.
Sartre ... classified this colonial movement as springing from the intellectual conditioning of the mother culture. he rightly assumed that any movement founded on an antithesis (hich responded to the artesian /$ think, therefore $ am' (ith /$ feel, therefore $ am' must be sub0ect to a dialectical determinism (hich made all those (ho /are' obedient to la(s formulated on the European historical e1perience. "o( (as he to kno(, if the proponents of the universal vision of '+gritude did not, that the !frican (orld did not and need not share the history of civilisations trapped in political Manicheisms.

,ibid.91?=*6.2 ,p. 21*22.