Postcolonial literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2008)

Postcolonial literature (or "Post-colonial literature", sometimes called "New English

literature(s)"), is a body of literary writings that reacts to the discourse of colonization. Post-
colonial literature often involves writings that deal with issues of de-colonization or the political
and cultural independence of people formerly subjugated to colonial rule. It is also a literary
critique to texts that carry racist or colonial undertones. Postcolonial literature, finally in its most
recent form, also attempts to critique the contemporary postcolonial discourse that has been
shaped over recent times. It attempts to re-read this very emergence of postcolonialism and its
literary expression itself.

Postcolonial literary critics re-examine classical literature with a particular focus on the social
"discourse" that shaped it. Edward Said in his popular work Orientalism
analyzes the writings of Honoré de Balzac, Charles Baudelaire and Lautréamont, exploring how
they were influenced, and how they helped to shape a societal fantasy of European racial
superiority. Postcolonial fiction writers might interact with the traditional colonial discourse by
attempting to modify or subvert it. An example of this is Jean Rhys' Wide
Sargasso Sea (1966), which was written as a pseudo-prequel to Charlotte Brontë's
Jane Eyre. Here, a familiar story is re-told from the perspective of an oppressed minor character.
Protagonists in post-colonial writings are often found to be struggling with questions of identity,
experiencing the conflict of living between the old, native world and the invasive forces of
hegemony from new, dominant cultures.

Postcolonial literature works through the process of "writing back", "re-writing", and "re-
reading". This describes the interpretation of well-known literature from the perspective of the
formerly colonized. In Wide Sargasso Sea, the protagonist is shown to be re-named and
exploited in several ways.

The "anti-conquest narrative" recasts indigenous inhabitants of colonised countries as victims

rather than foes of the colonisers.[1] This depicts the colonised people in a more human light but
risks absolving colonisers of responsibility for addressing the impacts of colonisation by
assuming that native inhabitants were "doomed" to their fate.[1]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Notable authors by region

 o 1.1 Africa
o 1.2 The Americas
o 1.3 The Middle East
o 1.4 Asia
• 2 History: Events leading to Post-Colonialism
• 3 Critic's Point of View
• 4 Social and cultural change
• 5 Postcolonial literary critics
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 Further reading

• 9 External links

[edit] Notable authors by region

This section needs to be expanded with JM Coetzee, Maryse Condé, Cyril Dabydeen, Tsitsi
Dangarembga, Raywat Deonandan , Buchi Emecheta, Athol Fugard, Nadine Gordimer, Bonny
Hicks, Hanif Kureishi, Doris Lessing, Earl Lovelace, Gabriel García Márquez, Bharati
Mukherjee, VS Naipaul, Michael Ondaatje, RK Narayan, Mahashweta Devi, EM Forster, Anita
Desai, Bapsi Sidhwa, Wilbur Smith, Wole Soyinka, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Yvonne Vera, Derek
Walcott, Kath Walker, Arundhati Roy, Amitav Ghosh, Haim Sabato, Eleanor Dark, Bole Butake,
Anne Tanyi-Tang, Bate Besong, Maxine Hong Kingston. Marcus Garvey, Frantz Fanon,Aimé
Césaire,Léon Damas.

[edit] Africa

Homi K Bhabha,Hampaté
Léopold Senghor conceived the idea of négritude,
Bâ, Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart (1958) made a significant
mark in African literature. Ayi Kwei Armah in Two Thousand
Seasons tried to establish an African perspective to their own history. In Britain, J. G.
Farrell's novels Troubles, The Siege of Krishnapur and
The Singapore Grip, written during the 1970s, are important texts dealing with the
collapse of the British Empire.

[edit] The Americas

Isabel Allende from Chile contributes to Latin-American literature and occasionally writes in a
style called magical realism or vivid story-telling, also used by Gabriel García Márquez, Juan
Rulfo and Salman Rushdie.
 Jean Rhys made a significant contribution to
The author
postcolonial literature in her novel Wide Sargasso Sea,
which describes a Creole (mixed-race) woman whose white British husband maltreats her based
on his perceptions of her racial heritage.

The Canadian writer Margaret Atwood is also a post-colonial writer who dealt with themes of
identity-seeking through her Southern Ontario Gothic style of writing.

[edit] The Middle East

This section needs to be expanded with Salman Rushdie and other authors.

[edit] Asia

Postcolonial writings have been found among much of Indian literature. Meena Alexander is
probably best known for lyrical memoirs that deal sensitively with struggles of women and
disenfranchised groups.

Philippine authors like F. Sionil José, Jose Dalisay, Jr., N. V. M. Gonzalez and Nick Joaquin
write about the post-colonial (some say neo-colonial) situation in the Philippines.

Sri Lankan writers like Nihal De Silva or Carl Muller write about the post-colonial situation and
the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, while Michael Ondaatje, international the most acclaimed author
with Sri Lankan roots, adds the perspective of the diaspora.

Though written by American author David Henry Hwang, M. Butterfly is one postcolonial work
regarding the Western perception of the East in general, but specifically addresses the Western
perspective on China and the French and American perspectives on Vietnam during the Vietnam
War.

[edit] History: Events leading to Post-Colonialism

Colonialism usually works through the use of brutal force employed by one country to exploit
another community and obtain economic wealth. Colonialism most commonly was the abuse of
native people. The post-colonial perspective emerged as a challenge to this tradition and legacy;
it attempts to illegitimize the idea of establishing power through conquest. Selim Al Deen from
Bangladesh has also written postcolonial drama.

[edit] Critic's Point of View

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2008)
What qualifies as postcolonial literature is debatable. The term postcolonial literature has taken
on many meanings. The three subjects include:

1. Social and cultural change or erosion:[2] It seems that after independence is achieved, one main
question arises; what is the new cultural identity?

2. Misuse of power and exploitation: Even though the large power ceases to control them as a
colony, the settlers still seem to continue imposing power over the native.[2] The main question
here; who really is in power here, why, and how does an independence day really mean
independence?

3. Colonial abandonment and alienation: This topic is generally brought up to examine

individuals and not the ex-colony as a whole.[2] The individuals tend to ask themselves; in this
new country, where do I fit in and how do I make a living?

4. Use of English language literature: It may be asked if the target of post-colonial studies, i.e.
the analysis of post-colonial literature and culture, can be reached neglecting literary works in
the original languages of post-colonial nations.

[edit] Social and cultural change

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2008)

In order to look at change, you have to look at what something is changing from. Colonies go
through many changes throughout their existence. When looking at pre-colonialism, you see the
area’s original culture. Their beliefs and customs run smoothly and they are a functioning
society. Colonialism changes everything. In almost all cases of colonialism, the norms, beliefs
and cultural values of the larger power are forced upon all of the colonies natives. This is
because the colonizer believes that the natives are “savages” and they need to be civilized. The
natives have no choice but to accept these new ways of life. The settlers' technology is more
advanced and they could easily wipe out all natives who refuse to conform to the new culture.
This is where the depletion of their own culture begins. Natives stop practicing their religion. In
most cases they convert to Christianity, mainly because it is forced onto them. In order to
communicate with the colonizers/ settlers, they start speaking the settlers language. Soon enough
their own is lost.

After so many years of colonialism, the natives become similar to their colonizers. The
colonizers control education, therefore they control the thoughts and ideas absorbed by the
youth. Natives' children absorb the new culture and ideas at a young age. Because of this, the
original culture is lost in new generations. The colonizer is a brute force which oppresses the
natives. In the fight of this oppression, independence is fought for and a culture that has almost
been forgotten is once again sought after. Finally, an independence day comes. The larger power
no longer has control of the colony, or rather, former colony. Now post colonialism takes place.
Now that the larger power is gone, what is left of the original culture, the pre-colonial culture of
the native people? The subject of culture is deeply explored in postcolonial literature.
Postcolonialism deals with the aftermath of colonialism. It’s about the struggle of being
independent. One main concern in a post colonial nation is its government. After being
controlled by the large power for such a long time, they need to establish their own way of
running things. It’s difficult because their cultural identity is in question. Governments are
supposed to act in the best interest of the people, but what do the people want? The society is no
longer being oppressed as they have become an independent nation, free of oppression. However
they’ve changed, their culture has changed now and they need to figure out who they really are.

Postcolonial literature can be identified by its discussion of cultural identity. The piece of
literature, be it a novel, poem, short story etc. may be about the change that has taken place or
question the current change. Postcolonial literature tends to ask the question: Now that they’ve
finally achieved independence, what can they do? After so much change has taken place, their
culture cannot return to its original state.

Postcolonial literature tends to answer the following question: Should there be an attempt to
restore the original culture, conformity to the culture presented by the settlers or the creation of a
new culture which combines both? If a novel answers and explores any of the above questions it
may be considered postcolonial literature. When trying to identify post colonial literature, it is
important to recognize whether the ex-colony in question is actually independent or considered
independent, but reliant on its former colonist.

The Impact of Postcolonial Literary Criticism on Literary Theory

[edit] Postcolonial literary critics

Edward Said is often considered to have been the seminal postcolonial critic. Further critics are
Bill Ashcroft, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Homi K. Bhabha, Frantz Fanon, Leela Gandhi, Gareth
Griffiths, Abiola Irele, John McLeod, Gayatri Spivak, Hamid Dabashi, Helen Tiffin, Khal
Torabully, and Robert Young

[edit] See also

• Colonialism
• TSAR Publications
• Indian English literature
• Francophone literature
• Hungryalism
• Vernacular literature
• Migrant literature
• Penguin Book of Modern African Poetry
• Postcolonial Theory and the Arab-Israeli Conflict
• A Journal of Pakistan Studies

[edit] References
 1. ^ a b Revie, Linda L. (2003). The Niagara Companion: Explorers, Artists and Writers at
the Falls, from Discovery through the Twentieth Century. Wilfrid Laurier University
Press. pp. 95. ISBN 0889204330. http://books.google.com/books?
id=X8J3zgXVq_MC&dq=%22anti+conquest+narrative%22.
2. ^ a b c Mansour, Wisam. "Post-colonialism", Lecture 5, April 14, 2008. Accessed April
14, 2008.

[edit] Further reading

• Prem Poddar and David Johnson, A Historical Companion to Postcolonial Liteartures in
English, 2005
• John Thieme, The Arnold Anthology of Post-Colonial Literatures in English
• Chelsea 46: World Literature in English (1987)
• Poetry International 7/8 (2003–2004)
• Eugene Benson and L. W. Conolly (eds.), Encyclopedia of Post-Colonial Literatures in
English
• John McLeod, Beginning Postcolonialism, second edition (MUP, 2010).
• Alamgir Hashmi, Commonwealth Literature: An Essay Towards the Re-definition of a
Popular/Counter Culture
• Elleke Boehmer, Colonial and Postcolonial Literature: Migrant Metaphors
• Britta Olinde, A Sense of Place: Essays in Post-Colonial Literatures
• Peter Thompson, Littérature moderne du monde francophone. Chicago: NTC (McGraw-
Hill), 1997
• Postcolonial Theory and the Arab-Israeli Conflict edited by Philip Carl Salzman and
Donna Robinson Divine, Routledge (2008)

"Postcolonial Literature": Problems with the

Term
"Postcolonial Literature" is a hot commodity these days. On the one hand writers like Salman
Rushdie and Arundhati Roy are best-selling authors; and on the other hand, no college English
department worth its salt wants to be without a scholar who can knowledgeably discourse about
postcolonial theory.

But there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty as to just what the term denotes. Many of the
debates among postcolonial scholars center on which national literatures or authors can be
justifiably included in the postcolonial canon. Much of the discussion among postcolonial
scholars involves criticisms of the term "postcolonial" itself. In addition, it is seldom mentioned
but quite striking that very few actual authors of the literature under discussion embrace and use
the term to label their own writing.
It should be acknowledged that postcolonial theory functions as a subdivision within the even
more misleadingly named field of "cultural studies": the whole body of generally leftist radical
literary theory and criticism which includes Marxist, Gramscian, Foucauldian, and various
feminist schools of thought, among others. What all of these schools of thought have in common
is a determination to analyze unjust power relationships as manifested in cultural products like
literature (and film, art, etc.). Practitioners generally consider themselves politically engaged and
committed to some variety or other of liberation process.

It is also important to understand that not all postcolonial scholars are literary scholars.
Postcolonial theory is applied to political science, to history, and to other related fields. People
who call themselves postcolonial scholars generally see themselves as part of a large (if poorly
defined and disorganized) movement to expose and struggle against the influence of large, rich
nations (mostly European, plus the U.S.) on poorer nations (mostly in the southern hemisphere).

Taken literally, the term "postcolonial literature" would seem to label literature written by people
living in countries formerly colonized by other nations. This is undoubtedly what the term
originally meant, but there are many problems with this definition.

First, literal colonization is not the exclusive object of postcolonial study. Lenin's cla���ssic
analysis of imperialism led to Antonio Gramisci's concept of "hegemony" which distinguishes
between literal political dominance and dominance through ideas and culture (what many critics
of American influence call the "Coca-Colanization" of the world). Sixties thinkers developed the
concept of neo-imperialism to label relationships like that between the U.S. and many Latin
American countries which, while nominally independent, had economies dominated by
American business interests, often backed up by American military forces. The term "banana
republic" was originally a sarcastic label for such subjugated countries, ruled more by the
influence of the United Fruit Corporation than by their own indigenous governments.

Second, among the works commonly studied under this label are novels like Claude McKay's
Banjo and Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart which were written while the nations in question
(Jamaica and Nigeria) were still colonies. Some scholars attempt to solve this problem by
arguing that the term should denote works written after colonization, not only those created after
independence; but that would be "postcolonization" literature. Few people understand the term in
this sense outside a small circle of scholars working in the field.

Third, some critics argue that the term misleadingly implies that colonialism is over when in fact
most of the nations involved are still culturally and economically subordinated to the rich
industrial states through various forms of neo-colonialism even though they are technically
independent.

Fourth, it can be argued that this way of defining a whole era is Eurocentric, that it singles out
the colonial experience as the most important fact about the countries involved. Surely that
experience has had many powerful influences; but this is not necessarily the framework within
which writers from--say--India, who have a long history of precolonial literature, wish to be
viewed.
For instance, R. K. Narayan--one of the most popular and widely read of modern Indian writers--
displays a remarkable indifference to the historical experience of colonialism, a fact which
results in his being almost entirely ignored by postcolonial scholars. V. S. Naipaul is so fierce a
critic of the postcolonial world despite his origins as a descendant of Indian indentured laborers
in Trinidad that he is more often cited as an opponent than as an ally in the postcolonial struggle.

In fact, it is not uncommon for citizens of "postcolonial" countries to accuse Americans and
Europeans of practicing a form of neocolonialism themselves in viewing their history through
this particular lens. Postcolonial criticism could be compared to the tendency of Hollywood films
set in such countries to focus on the problems of Americans and Europeans within those societies
while marginalizing the views of their native peoples.

Fifth, many "postcolonial" authors do not share the general orientation of postcolonial scholars
toward engaging in an ongoing critique of colonialism. Nigerian writers Chinua Achebe and
Wole Soyinka, for instance, after writing powerful indictments of the British in their country,
turned to exposing the deeds of native-born dictators and corrupt officials within their
independent homeland. Although postcolonial scholars would explain this corruption as a by-
product of colonialism, such authors commonly have little interest in pursuing this train of
thought.

Although there has been sporadic agitation in some African quarters for reparations for the
slavery era, most writers of fiction, drama, and poetry see little point in continually rehashing the
past to solve today's problems. It is striking how little modern fiction from formerly colonized
nations highlights the colonial past. Non-fiction writers often point out that Hindu-Muslim
conflicts in South Asia are in part the heritage of attempts by the British administration in India
to play the two groups of against each other (not to mention the special role assigned to the Sikhs
in the British army); yet Indian fiction about these conflicts rarely points to such colonial causes.
A good example is Kushwant Singh's Train to Pakistan (1956) which deals directly with the
partition of India from an almost exclusively Indian perspective.

Indeed, "postcolonial" writers often move to England or North America (because they have been
exiled, or because they find a more receptive audience there, or simply in search of a more
comfortable mode of living) and even sometimes--like Soyinka--call upon the governments of
these "neocolonialist" nations to come to the aid of freedom movements seeking to overthrow
native tyrants.

Sixth, "postcolonialism" as a term lends itself to very broad use. Australians and Canadians
sometimes claim to live in postcolonial societies, but many would refuse them the label because
their literature is dominated by European immigrants, and is therefore a literature of privilege
rather than of protest. According to the usual postcolonial paradigm only literature written by
native peoples in Canada and Australia would truly qualify.

Similarly, the label is usually denied to U.S. literature, though America's identity was formed in
contradistinction to that of England, because the U.S. is usually viewed as the very epitome of a
modern neo-colonial nation, imposing its values, economic pressures, and political interests on a
wide range of weaker countries.
The Irish are often put forward as an instance of a postcolonial European people, and indeed
many African writers have been inspired by Irish ones for that reason. Yet some of the more
nationalist ones (like Yeats) tended toward distressingly conservative--even reactionary--politics,
and James Joyce had the utmost contempt for Irish nationalism. It is not clear how many Irish
authors would have accepted the term if they had known of it.

Although postcolonial theory generally confines itself to the past half-century, it can be argued
that everyone has been colonized at some time or other. Five thousand years ago Sumer started
the process by uniting formerly independent city-states, and Narmer similarly subjugated
formerly independent Upper and Lower Egypt. Rushdie likes to point out that England itself is a
postcolonial nation, having been conquered by Romans and Normans, among others.

Not only is the term "postcolonial" exceedingly fuzzy, it can also be argued that it is also often
ineffective. A good deal of postcolonial debate has to do with rival claims to victimhood, with
each side claiming the sympathies of right-thinking people because of their past sufferings. The
conflicts between Bosnians and Serbs, Palestinians and Jews, Turks and Greeks, Hindu and
Muslim Indians, and Catholic and Protestant Irish illustrate the problems with using historical
suffering as justification for a political program. It is quite true that Europeans and Americans
often arrogantly dismiss their own roles in creating the political messes of postcolonial nations
around the world; but it is unclear how accusations against them promote the welfare of those
nations. In addition, when they are made to feel guilty, countries--like individuals--are as likely
to behave badly as they are to behave generously.

It may make American and European scholars feel better to disassociate themselves from the
crimes of their ancestors (which are admittedly, enormously bloody and oppressive, and should
be acknowledged and studied--see resources below), but people struggling for freedom in
oppressed nations are more likely to draw inspiration from the quintessentially European
Enlightenment concept of rights under natural law than they are to turn to postcolonial theory.
Similarly, European capitalist market theory is far more attractive to most people struggling
against poverty in these nations than are the varieties of socialism propounded by postcolonial
theoreticians.

"Postcolonial" is also a troublesome term because it draws some very arbitrary lines. South
African writers Athol Fugard and Nadine Gordimer are often excluded from postcolonial
courses, although their works were powerful protests against apartheid and they have lived and
worked far more in Africa than, say, Buchi Emicheta, who emigrated to England as a very young
woman and has done all of her writing there--because they are white. A host of fine Indian
writers is neglected simply because they do not write in English on the sensible grounds that
India has a millennia-long tradition of writing which should not be arbitrarily linked to the
British imperial episode.

Of those who write in English, Anita Desai is included, though she is half German. Ngugi wa
Thiong'o is included even though he now writes primarily in Gikuyu. Bharati Mukherjee
specifically rejects the label "Indian-American," though she is an immigrant from India, and
Rushdie prefers to be thought of as a sort of multinational hybrid (though he has, on occasion,
used the label "postcolonial" in his own writing). Hanif Kureishi is more English than Pakistani
in his outlook, and many Caribbean-born writers living in England are now classed as "Black
British." What determines when you are too acculturated to be counted as postcolonial: where
you were born? how long you've lived abroad? your subject matter? These and similar questions
are the object of constant debate.

In fact, postcolonial theoretician Homi Bhabha developed the term "hybridity" to capture the
sense that many writers have of belonging to both cultures. More and more writers, like Rushdie,
reject the older paradigm of "exile" which was meaningful to earlier generations of emigrants in
favor of accepting their blend of cultures as a positive synthesis. This celebration of cultural
blending considerably blurs the boundaries laid down by postcolonial theory.

In practice, postcolonial literary studies are often sharply divided along linguistic lines in a way
which simply reinforces Eurocentric attitudes. Latin American postcolonial studies are seldom
explored by those laboring in English departments. Francophone African literature is generally
neglected by Anglophone African scholars. Because of these failures to cut across linguistic
boundaries, the roles of England and France are exaggerated over those of the colonized regions.

It can even be asked whether the entire premise of postcolonial studies is valid: that examining
these literatures can give voice to formerly suppressed peoples. This is the question asked by
Gayatri Spivak in her famous essay, "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Using Antonio Gramsci's
arcane label for oppressed people, she points out that anyone who has achieved enough literacy
and sophistication to produce a widely-read piece of fiction is almost certainly by that very fact
disqualified from speaking for the people he or she is supposed to represent. The "Subaltern
Group" of Indian scholars has tried to claim the term to support their own analyses (a similar
project exists among Latin American scholars), but the nagging question raised by Spivak
remains.

It is notable that whenever writers from the postcolonial world like Soyinka, Derek Walcott, or
Rushdie receive wide recognition they are denounced as unrepresentative and inferior to other,
more obscure but more "legitimate" spokespeople.

This phenomenon is related to the question of "essentialism" which features so largely in

contemporary political and literary theory. Usually the term is used negatively, to describe
stereotypical ideas of--to take as an example my own ancestors--the Irish as drunken,
irresponsible louts. However, protest movements built on self-esteem resort to essentialism in a
positive sense, as in the many varieties of "black pride" movements which have emerged at
various times, with the earliest perhaps being the concept of "négritude" developed by Caribbean
and African writers living in Paris in the 1930s and 40s. However, each new attempt to create a
positive group identity tends to be seen by at least some members of the group as restrictive, as a
new form of oppressive essentialism.

Faced with the dilemma of wanting to make positive claims for certain ethnic groups or
nationalities while simultaneously acknowledging individualism, some critics have put forward
the concept of "strategic essentialism" in which one can speak in rather simplified forms of group
identity for the purposes of struggle while debating within the group the finer shades of
difference.
There are two major problems with this strategy, however. First, there are always dissenters
within each group who speak out against the new corporate identity, and they are especially
likely to be taken seriously by the very audiences targeted by strategic essentialism. Second,
white conservatives have caught on to this strategy: they routinely denounce affirmative action,
for instance, by quoting Martin Luther King, as if his only goal was "color blindness" rather than
real economic and social equality. They snipe, fairly effectively, at any group which puts
forward corporate claims for any ethnic group by calling them racist. Strategic essentialism
envisions a world in which internal debates among oppressed people can be sealed off from
public debates with oppressors. Such a world does not exist.

Similarly, "strategic postcolonialism" is likely to be a self-defeating strategy, since most writers

on the subject publicly and endlessly debate the problems associated with the term. In addition,
the label is too fuzzy to serve as a useful tool for long in any exchange of polemics. It lacks the
sharp edge necessary to make it serve as a useful weapon.

However, those of us unwilling to adopt the label "postcolonial" are hard put to find an
appropriate term for what we study. The old "Commonwealth literature" is obviously too
confining and outdated as well as being extremely Eurocentric. "Anglophone literature" excludes
the many rich literatures of Africa, for instance, written in European languages other than
English, and taken in the literal sense, it does not distinguish between mainstream British and
American writing and the material under discussion. "New literature written in English" (or
"englishes" as some say) puts too much emphasis on newness (McKay is hardly new) and again
excludes the non-English-speaking world. "Third-world" makes no sense since the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the Communist "second world." "Literature of developing nations" buys
into an economic paradigm which most "postcolonial" scholars reject.

The more it is examined, the more the postcolonial sphere crumbles. Though Jamaican, Nigerian,
and Indian writers have much to say to each other; it is not clear that they should be lumped
together. We continue to use the term "postcolonial" as a pis aller, and to argue about it until
something better comes along.