Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
5
itself defined as a difference from che eli te. lt is toward this strucrure thar
rhe research is orienred, a predicamenr rather di fferenr from rhe self-
diagnosed transparency of the first-world radical intellecrual. What
raxonomy can fi x such a space? Whether or not they themselves perceive ir
- in fact Guha sees his definition of 'the people' wit hi n che master-slave
di alectic- rheir rext articul ares the difficul t task of rewriti ng its own condi-
tions of impossibi li ty as the conditions of irs possibil ity.
'At rhe regional and locallevels [the dominant indigenous groupsj ...
if belongi ng ro social srrara hierarchicall y inferi or ro those of rhe dominant
all -Indian groups acted in the interests o( the latter and not in con(ormity
to interests correspo11ding truly lo tiJeir own social bei11g.' When rhese
writers spcak, in their essentializing language, of a gap berween interese and
acrion in rhe intermediare group, their conclusions are closer ro \llarx rha n
to the self-conscious naiver of Deleuze's pronouncemenr on rhe issue.
Guha, like Marx, speaks of inrerest in rerms of che social rarher rhan rhe
libidinal bei ng. The Name-of-thc-Father imagery in The EigiJteentiJ
Brumaire can help to emphasize rhar, on the level of class or group action,
'true correspondence ro own being' is as artificial or social as rhe
patronymic.
So much for the intermediare group marked in tem 3. For rhe ' true'
subal tern group, whose idenrity is irs difference, rhere is no unrepresenrable
subaltern subject that can know and speak irself; the intellectual's solurion
is not to absrain from represenrati on. The problem is rhar the subjecr's
itinerary has nor been traced so as ro offer an object of seduction ro rhe
represenri ng intcllecrual. In the slightly dated language of rhc lndian group,
the question becomes, How can we rouch che consciousness of rhe people,
even as we investigare rheir politics? Wit h what voice-consciousness Cln rhe
subaltern speak? Their project, after all , is ro rewrire the development of
.consciousness of the Indian nation. The planned discontinuiry of impe-
disringuishes this projecc, however old-fashioned irs
aruculauon, from 'renderi ng visible rhe medica! and jurdica( mechanisms
that surrounded the story [of Pierre Riviere].' Foucaulr is correcr in
suggesring that 'to make visible the unseen can also mean a change of level,
27
GAYATRI CHAKRAVORTY SPIVAK
addressi ng oneself ro a !ayer of material which had hitherto had no perci-
nence for history and which had not becn recognized as having any moral,
aesthetic or historical value.' lt is the sli ppage from rendering visible the
mechanism to renderi ng rhe individual, both a voidi ng 'any kind of analysis
of [ thc subject] wherher psychological, psychoanalyrical or linguistic,' rhat
is consisrentl y rroublesome (Foucaulr 1980: 49-50) ....
When we come to rhe concomitam question of rhe consciousness of
rhe subaltern, rhe noon of whar rhe work cmmot say becomes importam.
In rhe semioses of rhe social rext, elaborations of insurgency stand in the
place of 'the utterance.' The sender- ' the pcasant' - is marked only as a
pointer ro an irretrievable consciousness. As for thc receivcr, we must ask
who is 'the real receiver' of an ' insurgency?' Thc historian, transforming
'insurgency' into ' text for knowledge,' is only one 'receivcr' of any coll ec-
tively intended social act. With no possibiliry of nostalgia for that losr
ori gin, rhe histori an must suspend (as far as possible} rhc clamor of his or
her own consciousness (or consciousness-effect, as operated by disciplinary
training), so rhat rhe elaboration of che insurgcncy, packaged wirh an
insurgcnr-consciousness, does not freeze inro ; ~ n 'objecr of invesrigarion,'
or, worsc yer, a model for imitarion. 'The subjcct' implicd by rhe rexts of
insurgency can only serve as a counterpossibility for rhe narrarive sancrions
granred ro rhe colonial subject in thc dominant groups. The postcolonial
intcllectuals learn rhat their privilege is rheir loss. In chis they are a para-
digm of the inrellectuals.
1t is well known thar the notion of che feminine (rarher rhan the
subalrern of imperi al ism) has been used in a similar way wirhin decon-
srructi ve criticism and wirhin cenain varieties of feminist criticism. In
rhe former case, a figu re of 'woman' is at issue, one whose minimal predi-
carian as indeterminate is already avalable ro the phallocentric tradi tion.
Subaltern historiography raises questions of method that would prevent it
from usi ng such a ruse. For the 'figure' of woman, che rclarionship berween
woman and silence can be plotted by women themselvcs; race and class
differences are subsumed under rhat charge. Subaltcrn historiography must
confront rhe impossibility of such gestures. The narrow cpisremi c violence
of imperialism gives us an imperfect allegory of rhc general violence that is
rhe possibi li ry of an episteme.
Wirhin rhe effaced itinerary of the subalrcrn subject, the rrack of
sexual difference is doubly effected. Thc qucstion is not of fema le partici-
pation in insurgency, or the ground rules of rhe sexual division of labor, for
borh of which there is 'evidence.' lt is, rather, rhar, both as object of
colonialist historiography and as subject of insurgency, rhe ideological
consrrucrion of gender keeps rhe male domi nant. If, in the context of
colonial producri on, rhe subalrern has no hisrory and c ; ~ n n o r speak, rhe
subaltern as fcmale is even more deeply in shadow ....
28
r
4
Signs Taken for Wonders
H OMI K. BHABHA':
A remarkable peculiarity is that they (the English) always write
the personaljHOIIOIIII lwith a capitalletter. May we 1101 consider
this Great 1 as an 1mintended proof IJow much an Englishman
thinks o( his ow11 consequence?
Roben Southey, Lelters (rom England
THERE IS A scene in the cultural wri ti ngs of English colonialism which
repeats so insistently afrer the early ninereenth century- and, through thar
repetition, so triumphantl y inaugurales a li terarure of empire - thar 1 am
bound ro repe;tt ir once more. h is rhe scenario, played out in rhe wild and
wordlcss wasres of colonial India, Africa, rhe Caribbean, of the sudden
fortui tous discovery of the English book. Ir is, like all myths of origin,
memorable for its balance between epipbany and enunciarion. The
discovery of the book is, at once, a moment of originality and authority, as
well as a process of displacement that, paradoxicall y, makes the presence
of the book wondrous ro the exrenr ro which it is repeated, translated,
misread, displaced. Ir is wirh the emblem of the English book- 'signs raken
for wonders' - as an insignia of colonial authoriry and a signifier of
coloni al desirc and discipline, that I wanr ro begin rhis essay.
In the first week of May 181 7, Anund Messeh, one of rhe earli esr
Indian catechists, made a hurried and excired journey from his mission in
Meerur ro a grovc of trees outside Delhi.
He found about 500 people, men, womcn and childrcn, seared under
the shade of che crees, and employcd, as had been rclared ro him, in
reading and conversarion. He wenr up ro an elderly looking man, and
accosted him, and rhc following conversation passed.
From 'Signs Taken for Wonders: Qucsrions of Ambivalence and Aurhoriry Under
a Tree Oucside Delhi, M ay 181 7' Criticnllnquiry 12( 1 ), 1985.
29
HOMI K. BHABHA
'Pray who are all rhese people? and whence come they?' '\Y/e are poor
and lowly, and we read and !ove rhis book'- 'What is rhar book?' 'The
book of God!'-'Ler me look at ir, if you picase.' Anund, on opening
rhe book, perceivcd ir ro be rhe Gospel of our Lord, rranslated imo rhe
Hindoosranee Tongue, many copi es of which seemed ro be in the
possession of rhe party: some were PRINTED orhers WRllTEN by
rhemselves from rhc printed ones. Anund pointed ro rhe name of Jcsus,
and asked, '\Y/ho is rhar?' 'Thar is God! He gave us rhis book.' -
' Wherc dd you obran ir?' 'An Angel from heaven gave ir us, ar
Hurdwar fa r.'- 'An Angel?' ' Yes, ro us he was God's Angel: bur he
was a man, a learned Pundr.' (Doubdess rhese rranslated Gospels musr
have becn rhe books disrrbured, fivc or six yea rs ago, ar Hurdwar by
the Missionary.) 'The written copies we wrire ourselves, having no
orher mcans of obtaining more of rhis blessed word.' - 'These books,'
said Anund, ' reach rhe rel igion of rhc European Sahibs. lt is THEIR
book; and rhey prinred ir in our languagc, for our use.' 'Ah! no'; repliecl
rhc srranger, 'rhar cannor be, for rhey ear Ocsh.'- 'jesus Chri sr,' sa id
Anund, ' reaches rhat it does nor signify whar a man ears or dri nks.
EATING is norhing bcfore God. Not tbnt wbicb entereth into aman's
mouth de{iletb him but t/}(1/ which cometh out o( the mouth, this
de{ileth n man: for vile rhngs come fort h from rhe heart. Out of the
heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, {omicntions, thefts;
and these nre the things that de(i/e.'
'Thar is rruc; bur how can ir be rhc Europea n Book, when we believe
rhar ir is God's gifr ro us? He sent ir ro us ar Hurdwar.' 'God gave ir
long ago ro rhe Sahibs, and TI lEY scnr ir ro us.' The ignorance and
simpliciry of many are very srriking, never having heard of a prinred
book befare; and its very appearancc was ro rhem miraculous. A grcat
srir was cxcited by the gradual increasing information hereby
obrai ned, and all united tO acknowledge rhe superiority of rhc
doctrines of this Holy Book ro every rhing which rhey had hirherro
heard or known. An indifference ro the disrincrons of Casre soon
manifesred irself; and rhe interference and ryrannical aurhoriry of rhe
Brahmi ns became more offensivc and conremprible. Ar last, ir was
dcrcrrnined ro separare rhemselves from rhe resr of rheir Hindoo
Brcrh ren; and ro esrablish a parry of rhcir own choosi ng, four or five,
who could read the besr, ro be rhe publi c reachers frorn rhi s newly-
acquired Book .. . . Anund asked them, ' Why are you all dresscd in
whire?' 'The people of God should wear whitc raimenr,' was rhe reply,
'as a sign rhar rhey are clean, and ri d of rheir sins.'- Anund observed,
' You oughr ro be BAPTIZED, in rhc name of rhe Farher, and of rhe
Son, and of rhe Holy Ghost. Come ro Meerur: rhere is a Christian
Padre there; and he will shew you whar )' OU oughr ro do.' They
answercd, 'Now we must go home ro thc harvesr; but, as we mean ro
meer once a year, perhaps rhe next year we may come ro Meerur.' 1
explaincd ro rhem the narurc of rhe Sacrament and of Baprism; in
answer ro which, rhey replicd, '\"1/e are willing ro be baptized, but we
will never rake rhe Sacrament. To all rhe orher cusroms of Chri stians
wc are willing to conform, but not ro rhe Sacramenr, because rhc
30
SIGNS TAKEN FOR \"1/01'\DERS
Europeans ear cow's Oesh, and rhis will never do for us.' To this 1
answered, 'thi s WORD is of God, and nor of men; and whcn ir makes
our hearts ro undersrand, rhen you will PROPERLY comprchend ir.
~ h e y repli ed, 'If all our country wll receive this Sacmment, rhcn will
we.' 1 rhen observed, The rime is at hand, when all thc counrrics will
receive rhis \"1/0RD.' Thcy rcpli ed, ' True.'
(.Missionary Regsrer 1818: 18-19])
Almost a hundred years later, in 1902, joseph Conrad's Marlow,
traveling in the Congo, in the ni ght of the first ages, without a sigo and no
memories, cut off from the comprehension of his surroundings, desperarely
11
need of a deliberare belief, comes upon Towson's (or Towser's} lnquiry
1110
some Points o( Seamanship.
Nota very enrhralling book; bur ar rhe first glancc you could sce rhcre
a singleness of inrenrion, an honcsr concern for rhe righr way of going
ro work, which made rhese humbl e pages, rhoughr our so many years
ago, luminous wirh anorhcr than a professional light .. .. 1 assure you
ro ]cave off readi ng was like rearing mysel f away from rhc shelrcr of
an old and solid fricndship ....
' Ir musr be rh is miserable trader - rhis inrruder,' exclaimed the
manager, looking back malevolenrl)' ar rhe place we had lefr. 'He must
be English,' 1 said.
(Conmd 1902: 71, 72)
Half a century later, a young Trinidadian discovers that S<lmc volume of
Towson's in that very passage from Conrad and draws from it a vision of
literature and a lesson of history. 'The scene,' writes V. S. Naipaul,
'answered some of the political pani c I was beginning ro feel':
To be a colonial was ro know a kind of security; it was ro inhabir a
fixed world. And 1 suppose rhar in my fantasy 1 had seen myself
coming ro England as ro sorne purely lirerary region, where, unrram-
meled by rhe accidenrs of hisrory or background, 1 could make a
romanric career for myself as a wrirer. Bur in rhe new world 1 felr rhar
ground move below me ... Conrad . .. had been everywhcrc before
me. Nor as a man wirh a ca use, bur a man offering a vi sion of rhc
world's half-made societi es . .. whcrc always 'somerhing inherenr in
rhc necessiri es of successful acri on carried wirh ir rhe moral degmda-
tion of rhe idea.' Dismal bur dceply fe lr: a kind of trurh and half a
consolation.
(Naipaul 1974: 233)
Written as rhey are in the na me of the father and the author, these rexts
of the civi lizing mission immediatcly suggest the tri umph of the colonialist
momenr in early English Evangeli sm and modero English lirerature. The
discovery of the book install s rhe sign of appropriarc representation: rhe
word of God, trurh, art creares the conditions for a beginning, a pracrice
of hi story and narrarive. But rhe institution of the Word in rhe wilds is also
31
HOMI K. BHABHA
an Enstelltmg, a process of displacement, distortion, dislocation, repetition
1
- the dazzling light of lirerature shcds only areas of darkness. Still the idea
of the English book is presenrcd as universally adequate: like rhe
' metaphoric writing of rhe West,' ir communicares ' rhe immediare vision
of the thi ng, freed from the discourse thar accompanied ir, or even
encumbered it' (Derrida 1981: 189-90) ... .
The discovery of the English book establishes both a measure of
mimesis and a mode of civil authoriry and order. If rhese scenes, as J've
narrared rhem, suggest the triumph of rhe writ of colonialist power, then ir
musr be conceded that the wi ly letter of the law inscribes a much more
ambivalcnt rexr of aurhority. For it is in berween the edict of Englishness
and the assault of the dark unruly spaccs of rhe carrh, rhrough an act of
repcrition, thar rhe colonial text emerges uncerrainl y. Anund Messeh
disavows rhe natives' disturbing questions as he rerurns to repeat rhe now
quesrionable 'aurhoriry' of Evangelical dicta; Marlow rurns away from the
African jungle ro recognize, in rerrospecr, the peculi arly ' English' quality of
rhe discovery of rhe book; Naipaul ntrns his back on rhc hybrid half-made
colonial world ro fix his e}'e on thc universal domain of English lirerature.
Whar we wirness is neirher an unrroubled, innocem dream of England nora
'secondary revision' of thc nighrmare of India, Africa, rhe Caribbean. What
is 'Engli sh' in rhesc discourses of colonial power cannot be represenred as a
plenitude ora 'full' presence; iris derermined by its belatedness. As a signi-
fier of aurhority, thc Engli sh book acquires irs me::1t1ing a(ter rhe traumatic
scenario of colonial differencc, cultural or racial, rerurns 1 he eyc of power ro
sorne prior, archaic image or identiry. Paradoxically, however, such an image
can neither be 'origi nal ' by virrue of rhe act of repetiran rhar consrrucrs it-
nor 'identical' b}' virrue of rhe difference rhat defines ir. Consequently, the
colonial presence is always ambivalent, split berween its appearance as orig-
inal and authorirarive ami irs arricularion as repetition and difference . . ..
The place of difference and orherness, or rhe space of the adversaria!,
within such a sysrem of 'disposal' as !'ve proposed, is never entirel y on rhe
ourside or implacably oppositional. lt is a pressure, and a presence, rhat
acrs consrantl y, if unevcnly, along the enrire boundary of authorization,
rhat is, on rhe surface berween whar l've called disposal-as-besrowal and
disposirion-as-inclination. The contour of difference is agonistic, shifting,
splirring, rathcr like Freud's descriprion of rhe sysrem of consciousness
which occupies a posirion in space lying on the borderline berween ourside
and inside, a surface of prorection, receprion, and projection. The power
play of presence is lost if its transparency is treared naively as the nostalgia
for plenitude rhar should be nung repearedly into the abyss- mise en ab/me
- from which its desire is born. Such theoreticisr anarchism cannor inter-
vene in the agonisric space of aurhority where
rhe true and the falseare scparated and spccific cffects of power [are]
attached ro the true, it being undcrstood also that it is not a marrer of
32
T
SIGNS TAKEN FOR WONDERS
1
, b 1 Jf' of rhe rruth bm of a battle about the status of trllth
a batt e on e la . . , .
and the economic and pohucal role tt plays.
(Foucault 1980: 132)
. 1
1
rervene in such a bartle for rhe status of rhe truth that ir
lt ts prectse y ro n b k F . . h'
ro examine rhe presence of rhe English oo . or tt ts t ts
becomes eructa , . . . . 1
l
. t bilizes rhe agonisric colontal space; Jt ts trs afJpearallce t 1at
surface t 1at s a 11 d' 1 d
h
b' valence berween origin and Entste tmg, tsctp me an
regulares t e am t ..
d
're
1111
111esis and repermon.
est , f . ' b d bl
earances rhe rext o transparency mscn es a ou e
Desptre app ' '
. . h fi Id f che 'rrue' emerges as a visible effect of knowledge/power
VtStOn t C e O 1 f 1
1
f the reguhuory and displacing division of thc rrue and t 1e a se.
on y a ter . . ' , . b d . h
From rhis point of view, dtscurstve rranspar.ency tS esr rea tn .r e
h
h
1
c sensc in which a rranspa rency ts al.so always a negattve,
p orograp
d l
nro visibility rhrough the rechnologies of reversa!, enlargemenr,
processe f , s 1
lighting, editing, projecrion, nor. but a re-source o hg t. uc 1 a
b
g ro light is never a prevtston; tt ts always a questton of rhe provt-
nngm 1 .
sion of visibility as a capacity, a srraregy, an bur a s? 111 t 1e tn
which rhe prefix pro(vision) mi ght indicare an ehston of stght, dclegatton,
substitution, contiguity, in place of .. . whar? .
This is che quesrion that brings us ro rhe ambtvalence of the presence of
authority, peculiarly visible in its colonial articularion .. For if transparency
signifies discursive closure - inrention, image, tt doe.s so r.hrough a
disclosure of irs mies o( recognition - those soctal rexts of eptsremtc,
centric, nationalist inrelligibi liry which coherc in the address of authonty .as
rhe 'present,' rhe voice of modernity. The acknowledgemenr of authonry
upon rhe immediate- visibiliry.of its rules of recog-
nition as the unmisrakable referent of htsroncal necesstty.
In rhe doubly inscribed space of colonial represenration where rhe
presence of aurhoriry- rhe English book - is also a quesrion .of irs
and displacement, where rransparency is teclm, rhe immedtate of
such a rgime of recogn.ition is resisted. Resistance is not n:cessanly an
oppositional acr of poltica! intenrion, nor is ir rhe simple negarton .or
sion of rhe 'content' of an orher culwre, as a difference once percetved. Ir ts
rhe effect of an ambivalence produced withi n rhe rules of recognition of
dominaring discourses as rhey articulare rhe signs of cultura! diJference
and reimplicate rhcm within the deferential relations of colontal power -
hierarchy, normalization, marginalizarion, and so forrh. For dominaran is
achieved through a process of disavowal that denies the di({rance of colo-
nialist power - rhe chaos of irs inrervenrion as Entstellu11g, its dislocatory
presence- in arder ro preserve rhe aurhoriry of irs idenrity in the universalisr
narrative of nineteenrh-cenwry hisrorical and polirical evolurionism.
The exercise of colonialist aurhorit}', however, requires the producrion
of differenriarions, individuarions, idenrity effects rhrough which discrimi-
natory pracrices can map out subjecr populations rhat are tarred with rhe
33
HOMI K. BHABHA
visi ble and transparenr mark of power. Such a mode of subjection is distinct
from what Foucault describes as ' power rhrough transparency': the reign of
opinion, aftcr the late eighreenrh cenrury, which could not tolerare areas of
darkness and sought ro exercise power through rhe mere fact of things being
known and people seen in an immediate, coll ecti ve gaze. Whar radically
differentiares rhe exercise of colonial power is the unsuitabiliry of the
Enlightenmenr assumption of collectiviry and rhe eye that beholds ir. For
jeremy Bentham (as Michel Pcrrot poims out ), the small group is
representarive of rhe whole society- rhe pan is nlrendy rhe whole. Colonial
aurhority requires modes of discrimination (cultural, racial, administrative .. . )
thar disallow a srable unitary assumption of collectivi ty. The 'pan' (which
muse be the colonialisr foreign body) must be representative of thc ' whole'
(conquered country), but the righr of representation is based on its radical
difference. Such doublethink is made vi able only through rhe strategy of
disavowal jusr described, which requires a theory of the 'hybridization'
of discourse and power rhar is ignored by Wesrern posr-srrucrurali sts who
engage in rhe bartl e for 'power' as rhc purists of difference.
The discri minarory cffccts of rhe discourse of cultural colonialism, for
insrance, do not simply or singly rcfer ro a 'person', or ro a dialectical power
struggle berween self and Orher, or to a discri mination between mother
culture and al en cultures. Produced through the strategy of disavowal, the
re(erence of discriminaran is always ro a process of spl itting as the condi-
tion of subjection: a discriminaran berween rhe morher culture and its
basrards, rhe self and irs doubles, where the trace of what is disavowed is
not repressed bur repeared as something di((erent - a murarion, a hybrid.
Ir is such a partial and double force t hat is more than the mimetic bur less
than the symbolic, that disturbs the visibility of the colonial presence and
makes rhe recognition of its aurhority problematic. To be authorirari ve, irs
rules of recognirion musr reflect consensual knowlcdge or opinion; ro be
powerful, these rules of recognition must be breached in ordcr ro represem
the exorbitam objects of discrimination that li e beyond its purview.
Consequcntly if thc unitary (and essentialisr) refcrence ro racc, nation, or
cultural tradition is essential ro preserve rhe presence of aurhoriry as an
immediare mimetic effect, such essenrialism musr be exceeded in the articu-
lation of 'differentiatory,' discrirninarory idenriries.
To demonstrate such an 'excess' is nor rnerely to celebrare rhe joyous
power of the signifier. Hybridiry is rhe sign of thc productiviry of colonial
power, its shifring forces and fixiries; it is rhe name for the srrategic reversa(
of rhe process of dominaran rhrough disavowal (thar is, the production of
discriminarory identities rhat secure the 'pure' and original identity of
aurhority) . 1-l ybridity is the revaluation of rhe assumprio11 of colonial
identity through rhe repetition of discrirninatory idenri ty effects. lr displays
rhe 11ecessary deformarion and displacemenr of all sires of discri minaran
and dominaran. Ir unsettles rhe mimetic or narcissisric demands of colonial
power but rei mplicates irs identifications in srrategies of subversion thar
34
SIGNS TAKEN FOR WONDERS
turn che gaze of rhe discriminated back upon the eye of power. For rhe
colonial hybrid is the aniculation of the arnbivalenr space where the rire
of power is enacted 011 che site of desire, making irs objecrs at once discipl i-
nary and disseminarory - or, in my mixed meraphor, a negarive
transparency. lf discriminatory effects enable rhe aurhorities to keep an eye
011
them, rheir proli ferating difference evades rhat eye, escapes rhar
surveillance. Those discri minated againsr rnay be instantly recognized, but
they also force a recognirion of rhe immediacy and articulacy of aurhority-
a disturbing effect rhar is familiar in rhe repeared hesi tancy afflicri ng rhe
colonialist discourse when it contemplares irs discri minated subjects:
rhe inscrutnbility of rhe Chinese, rhe zmspenknble rites of the lndians, the
indescribnble habits of rhe Horrentots. It is not rhar rhe voice of aurhority is
ata loss for words. lt is, rather, that rhe colonial discourse has rcached rhat
point when, faced with rhe hybridity of its objecrs, rhc presence of power is
revealed as something orhcr than what its rules of recognition asserr.
rf rhe effecr of colonial power is seen to be rhe production of
hybridizarion rather than the noisy command of colonialisr aurhoriry or rhe
silent repression of narive traditions, then an imporrant change of perspec-
ti ve occurs. le reveals rhe ambivale11ce ar the source of tradirional
discourses on aurhority and enables a forrn of subversion, founded 011 that
uncertainty, that rurns the discursive condiri ons of dominance inro the
grounds of inrervenri on. lt is traditional academic wisdom that rhe pres-
ence of aurhority is properl y established through rhe nonexercise of pri vare
judgmenr and the exclusion of reasons, in conflicr wirh rhe aurhoritarive
reason. The recognition of aurhority, however, requires a valida tion of irs
source rhat must be imrnediately, even inruitively, apparenr- ' You have rhat
in your counrenance which 1 would fain call master' - and held in common
(rules of recognition). What is left unacknowledged is the paradox of such
a demand for proof and the resulting ambivalence for posirions of
authority. If, as Steven l. Lukes rightly says, the acceptance of aurhority
excludes any evaluation of rhe content of an uttera nce, and if irs source,
which must be acknowledged, disavows both confli cting reasons and
personal judgemenr, then can che 'signs' or 'marks' of aurhoriry be
anythi ng more rhan 'empry' presences of straregic devices? Need they
be any rhe less effcctive because of that? Not less effeccivc but effcctive in
a different form, would be our answer.
NOTE
'Overall effect of t he dream-work: t he latent t houghts are transformad lnto a
manlfest formation in which they are not easily recognisable. They are not
only transposed, as it were, into another key, but they are also distorted in
such a fashion that only an effort of interpretation can reconstitute them'
llaplanche and Pontalis 1980: 1241. See also Samuel Weber's excellent
chapter 'Metapsychology Set Apart' (1982: 32-601
35
5
Problems in Current Theories
of Colonial Discourse
BENITA PARRY':
THE WORK OF Spivak and Bhabha will be discussed ro suggest rhe
producrive capaciry and limitarions of their different deconstructive
pracrices, and ro propose rhat rhe protocols of their dissimi lar methods act
ro constrain the developmenr of an anri-imperialist critique. Ir will be
argued that the lacunae in Spivak's learned disquisitions issue from a theory
assigni ng an absolure power ro rhe hegemonic discourse in consrituting and
disarticulating che native. Jn essays rhat are ro form a study on Master
Discourse/Native informant, Spivak inspects 'the absence of a text that can
"ans,ver one back" after thc planned epistemic vi olence of the imperialist
projecr' (Spivak 1985a: 131), and seeks ro dcvclop a srrategy of reading that
will speak ro the hisrorically-muted native subject, predominantly inscribed
in Spivak's writings as the non-elite or subalrern woman. A refrain, 'One
never encounters the testimony of the women's voice-consciousness, ' 'There
is no space from where che subalrern (sexed) subject can speak,' 'The sub
altern as female cannot be heard or read,' ' The subalrern cannot speak'
(Spivak 1985b: 122, 129, 130), iterares a rheorerical dictum derived from
srudying the discourse of Sati lwidow sacrificeJ, in which rhe Hindu
patriarchal code converged with coloni alism's narrarivizarion of Indian
culture ro efface all traces of woman's voice.
What Spivak uncovers are insrances of doubly-oppressed narive women
who, caught between the dominations of a native parriarchy and a foreign
masculisr-imperialisr ideology, inrervene by 'unempharic, ad hoc, subaltern
rewriring(s) of rhe social rexr of Sati-suicide' (Spivak 1985b: 129): a nine-
teenth century Princess who appropriares- 'rhe dubious place of the free will
of rhe sexed subjecr as female' (Spivak 1985a: 144) by signaling her inren-
rion of being a Sati against the edict of rhe Brirish administration; a young
Bengal girl who in 1926 hanged herself under circumstances d1at dcliberarely
defied Hindu interdicts (Spivak 1985b). From che discourse of Sati Spivak
" From ' Problems in Current Theories of Coloni <ll Discourse' Ox(ord Literary
Review 9 (1&2), 1987.
36
CURRENT THEORIES OF COLONIAL DISCOURSE
d
es large, general srarements on woman's subject constitution/objecr
env b 1 . . d 1 d
f arion in which rhe su a rern woman 1s conce1ve as a 1omogeneous an
caregory,. and in a _on the sl_tccess of
1
planned disawculanon. Even w1th111 the confines of ti11S same d1scourse,
.
1
e:s significant rhat Lata Man does find evidence, albeit mediared, of
:oman's voice. As Chandra Talpade Mohanry argues in her critique
\ f wesrern feminisr wrirings on 'Third World Women,' discourses of repre-
oentation should not be confused wich material realiries. Since che narive
is consrrucred within multiple social relationships and posirioned
as the produce of different class, caste and cultural specificiries, ir should
be possible to locate traces and testimony of women's voice on those sites
where women inscribed themselves as healers, ascerics, singers of sacred
songs, arrizans and artisrs, and by rhis ro modify Spivak's model of che si lent
subalrern.
If ir could appear that Spivak is theorizing the si lencc of rhc doubly-
oppressed subalrern woman, her rheorem on imperialism's episremic
violence exrends ro posting the narive, maJe and female, as an hisrorically-
muted subject. The srory of colonialism which she reconsrrucrs is of an
inreractive process where the European agenr in consolidaring the impcri-
alisr Sovereign Self, induces the native to collude in its own subj ect(ed)
formation as other and voiceless. Thus while proresring at the obliterarion
of the narive's subject position in che text of imperialism, Spivak in her
project gives no speaking pare ro the coloni zed, effecrively wriring out rhe
evidence of native agency recorded in India 's 200 year struggle against
British conquest and che Raj - discourses ro which she scarhingly refers as
hegemonic nativist or reverse erhnocentric narrativization.
The disparaging of nationalisr discourses of resistance is marched by
rhe exorbitation of the role allocred ro the post-coloni al woman incellectual,
for it is she who must plot a story, unravel a narra ti ve and give the subalrern
a voice in history, by using 'rhe resources of deconsrrucrion "in the service
of reading" to develop a straregy rather than a theory of reading that might
be a critique of imperiali sm' (Spivak 1986: 230). Spivak's 'alternative
narrative of colonialisrn' rhrough a series of brilliant upheavals of rexrs
which expose rhe fabrications and exclusions in rhe wriring of rhe archive,
is direcred at challenging the auchority of rhe received hisrorical record and
restoring the effaced signs of na ti ve consciousness, and iris on rhese grounds
thar her projecr should be esrimated. Her account, iris claimed, disposes of
the old srory by dispersing the fixed, unicary categories on which this
depended. Thus ir is argued rhac for purposes of adminisrrarion and
exploitation of resources, rhe narivc was constructed as a prograrnmed,
' nearly-selved' other of the Europea n and not as its binary opposite.
Furthermore, rhe carrography thar became che 'realicy' of India was drawn
by agenrs who were rhemselves of hererogeneous class origin and social
and whose (necessarily) diversified maps distributed che native inro
dJfferential posirions which worked in the interese of the foreign authoriry
37
BENITA PARRY
- for example, a fanras rnatic race-di fferentiared demography
resroring 'righrful' Aryan rulers, and a class discourse effecring rhe proro-
proletarianizarion of the 'aborigines.'
lnsread of recouming a srruggle berween a rnonolithic, near-deliberarive
colonial power and an undifferentiated oppressed mass, this reconsrrucrion
displays a process more insidious rhan naked repression, since here rhe narive
is prevailed upon ro inrernalize as self-knowledge, the knowledge concocred
by the master: ' He {the European agenr) is worlding thcir own world, which
is far from mere uninscribed earrh, anew, by obligi ng them ro domesticare
rhe al en as Master,' a process gencrating rhe force 'ro make rhe "narive" see
himself as "other"' (Spivak 1985a: 133). Whcrc military conqucsr, institu-
ti onal compulsion and ideological inrerpell arion was, episremi c violence and
devious discursive negori ati ons requiring of thc native rhat he rewrite his
posirion as objecr of imperialism, is; and in place of recalcitrance and refusal
enacted in movements of resista nce and aniculated in opposirional
discourses, a tale is rold of the self-consoliclating orher and thc disarticulared
subalrcrn.
This raw and selective summary of what are complcx and subde argu-
ments has rried to cl raw out rhe polirical implicarions of a rheory whose
axioms deny ro the native the ground from which ro uttcr a reply ro impe-
rialism's ideological aggression or ro enunciare a different self:
No pcrspective critica/ of imperialism can turn thc Othcr in10 a sel f,
because the project o( imperialism has always already historicall y
refracted what might have been the absolutely Orhcr into a domcsti
cated Other that consolidares the imperialist sclf .... A full literary
inscription cannor easily flourish in the imperialist fracture or discon
tinuiry, col'ered over by an alen legal sysrem masqucrading as Law as
such, an alen ideology esrablished as only trurh, and a ser of human
sciences busy establishing rhe native 'as self-consoliciaring Othcr.'
(Spivak 1985c: 253, 254)
In bringing rhis thesis ro her reading of \Vide Sargasso Sea (Rhys 1968)
as j ane Eyre's reinscription, Spivak demonstrares che pitfalts of a rheory
posrul ating 1har rhe Master Discourse preemprs rhe (self) consticurion of
the hi storical native subject. When Spivak's nori on is juxtaposed ro the
quesrion Said asks in Orienralism, 'how can one srudy orher cultures and
peoples from a libertaran, or a non-repressivc and non-manipularive
perspective?', and Jean Rhys' novel examined for irs enunciation (despite
much incidental racism) of jusr such a perspectivc which faci li tares the
transformaran of rhe Orher inro a Self, then ir is possible ro consrruct a
rc-reading of Wide Sargasso Sea irerating many of Spivak's observarions
while dispuring her founding precepts.
Spivak argues rhat beca use rhe construction of an English cultural iden-
tit)' was inseparable from orhering rhe native as its objecr, rhe art iculation of
the femalc subject withm the emcrging norm of fcminisr individualism
38
CURRENT THEORI ES OF COLONIAL DISCOURSE
. rhe age of imperi alism, necessarily excluded the narive fe male, who
dunng d b 1 d 1 h b'
irioned on rhe boun ary erween mman an an1ma as r e o JCCt
was pos 1 k 1 1 l
f
. rialism's social-miSSIOn or sou -ma 111g. n app y111g r 11s 1nteracnve
0
101
pe f \VI 'd S S S k
S
ro her read111g o vr . e argasso ea p1va ass1gns ro
proces f
1
d h . .
An inetre/Berrha, daughrer o s avc-owners an c1rcss ro a posr-emanct-
11
forrune, rhe role of rhe native female sacrificed in the cause of the
of rhe European female individualist. Alrhough Spivak
acknowledge that Sargasso Sea is 'a no.ve.l . a
nonical Engli sh rexr Wlthlll the European novellsnc tradltlon 1n rhe
of rhe whire Creole rarher than the native' (Spivak 1985c: 253), and
: ituares Antoinetre/Bertha as caught berween rhe Engl ish imperialist and rhe
black Jamaican, her discussion does nor pursue the rexr's represenrarions of
a Creole culture rhar is dependcnt on both yet singular, or its enunciari on of
a specific sertl er discourse, distinct from the texrs of imperialism. The dislo-
cations of rhe Creole position are repea redly spoken by Anroinerre, the
'Rochester' figure and Chrisrophine; the nexus of inrimacy and hatred
berween white settler and black servant is wrinen into the text in the mirror
imagery of Antoineue and Tia, a trape which for Spivak funcri ons ro invoke
rhe orher rhar could not be sclved:
We had eatcn the samc food, slept si de by si de, barhed in thc samc
river. As 1 ran, 1 rhought, 1 wi ll live with Tia and 1 will be li ke hcr ....
When 1 was closc 1 saw che jagged srone in her hand bur 1 did not sec
her throw ir .... 1 lookcd at her and l saw her face crumble as she
began ro cry. We srared at cach other blood on my face, tears on hcrs.
Ir was as if 1 saw myself. Likc in a looking-glass.
Rhys 1968: 24)
But while themselves not English, and indeed outcastes, the Creoles are
Masrers ro rhe blacks, and jusr as Brome's book invites the reader via
Rochester ro see Bertha Mason as situared on the human/animal fronrier
('One night 1 had been awakened by her yell s .... Ir was a fierce Wesr
lndian night ... rhosc are the sounds of a bottomless pit,' quored in Spivak
1985c: 247-8), so does Rhys' novel vi a Anroinette admit her audience to
the regulation sertler view of rebetlious blacks: 'the same face repeated over
and over, eyes gleaming, mouth half-open,' emitting 'a horrible noise ...
like animals howling but worse.' (Rhys 1968: 32, 35)
The idiosyncrasies of an accounr where Antoinette plays thc part of
'the woman from rhe coloni es' are consequences of Spivak's decree that
imperia lism's linguisri c aggression obliterares rhe inscription of a narive
self: thus a black femalc who in \\'lide Sargasso Sen is mosr fully selved,
must be reduced ro rhc status of a tangencial figure, and a white Creole
woman (mis)consrrued as rhe native female produced by the axiomarics of
imperial ism, her dcarh intcrpretcd as 'an allegory of the general epistemic
violence of imperialism, the construction of a self-i mmolaring subjecr for
the glorification of rhe social mission of rhe colonizer' (Spivak 1985c: 251 ).
39
BENITA PARRY
While all owing chat Christophi ne is boch speaking subject and interpreter
co whom Rhys designares some crucial functions, Spivak sees her as
marking che limics of the cext's discourse, and not, as is here argued,
disrupcing it.
What Spivak's srracegy of reading necessarily blots out is
Chriscophine's inscription as che native, fe male, individual Self who defies
the demands of the discriminacory discourses impinging on her person.
Although an ex-slave given as a wedding-presenc ro Antoinette's mother
and subsequently a caring servant, Christophine subvens the Creole
address thac would conscitute her as a domesticated Other, and assens
herself as art iculare antagonist of pacriarchal, senler and imperialisc
law. Natural mother to children and surrogate parent to Ancoinette,
Christophi ne scorns patriarchal auchority in her personallife by discarding
her pat ronymic and refusing her sons' fathers as husbands; as Antoinette's
protector she impugns 'Rochescer' for lcis economic and sexual exploitation
of her fortune and person and as fema le individuali sc she is eloquencly and
frequently concemptuous of male conduce, black and whice . . . .
Christophine's defiance is noc enacted in a small and circumscribed
space appropriated within che lines of dominant code, buc is a sca nce from
whi ch she delivers a frontal assault againsc ancagonists, and as such
constitutes a counter-discourse. \Xfi se ro che limics of post-emancipation
justicc, she is quick to invoke che procection of its law when ' Rochescer'
threatens her with retribution: ' This is free councry and I am free woman'
(Rhys 1968: 131) - which is exactl y how she funcrions in the text, her
retort to him condensing her role as che black, female individuali st: 'Read
and wrice 1 don' t know. Other thi11gs l k11ou/ (Rhys 1968: 133; emphasis
added) ....
Spivak's delibera red deafness ro the native voice where it is to be hea rd,
is at variance with her acure hearing of the unsaid in modes of Western
femi nist criticism which, while dismantli ng masculist conscwcrions, repro-
duce and foreclose colonialist scrucrures and imperialisr axioms by
'performing the li e of constituting a truth of global sisterhood wherc the
mesmerizi ng model remains maJe and female sparring partners of generaliz-
able or universal izable sexualiry who are rhe chi ef protagonists in thar
European concesr' (Spivak 1986: 226). Demanding of disciplinary standards
that 'equal righcs of hisrorical, geographical, linguistic specificity' be granted
ro the 'thoroughly strarified larger thearre of the Third World' (238}, Spivak
in her own writings severely resrri ccs (eliminares?) rhe space in which the
colonized can be writren back into history, even when 'interventionist
possibilicies' are exploited through the deconstructive strategies devised by
rhe post-colonial intellecrual.
Homi Bhabha on the other hand, through recoveri ng how rhe master
discourse was interrogated by che nacives in their own accents, produces an
autonomous position for the colonial within the confines of the hegemonic
discourse, and because of this enunciares a very different 'politics.' The
40
CURRENT THEORI ES OF DISCOURSE
ined effort of wrirings which initially concencrated on deconsrituting
of colonial discourse, and which latterl y have engaged wirh
t he of rhis rexr by rhe inappropriate utterances of the colo-
r. eed has been ro con test the notion Bhabha considers ro be implicir in
JUZ ' 1 d. . 1 . ] b 1
S id's Orientalism, that 'power anc 1scourse 1s possessec ent1re )' y e 1e
aloniser.' Bhabha reiterares che proposition of anri-colonialist writi ng that
objective of colonial discourse is co conscrue the coloni zcd as a racially
populat.ion in order . to justify conquest and rule. However
because he maimams that relanons of power and knowledge funcnon
arnbivalently, he argues rhat a discursive sysrem splir in enunciation,
constitutes a dispersed and variously positioned nati ve who by (mis)appro-
priating the rerrns of the dominant ideology, is able ro intercede against and
resist this mode of consrruct1on.
In dissenti ng from analysis ascribi ng an intentionality and unidirec-
tionality ro colonial power which, in Said's words, enabled Europe co
advance unmeraphorically upon the Orienc, Bhabha insisrs thar this not
only ignores represenration as a concept articulating borh rhe hisrorical and
rhe fantasmatic, but unifies rhe subject of colonial enunciation in a fixed
position as che passive object of discursive dominarion. By reveal ing the
multiple and contradictor)' articul ari ons in colonia lism's address, Bhabha
as contemporary critic seeks ro demonstrate the limits of its discursive
power and ro countennand its demand 'rhat irs discourse (be) non-dialogic,
its enunciation unitary' (Bhabha 1985a: 100); and by showing rhe wicle
range of stereotypes and che shifring subject positions assigned ro the
colonized in the colonialisr text, he sers out ro liberare the colonial from
its debased inscription as Europe's monolithic and shackl ed Other, ancl
into an auconomous native 'difference.' However, this rea ppropriation
although effected by rhe cleconstructions of che post-coloni al inrellectual ,
is made possible by uncovering how rhe masrer-discourse had al ready
been interroga red by the colonized in native accencs. For Bha bha, the sub-
altern has spoken, and his readings of rhe coloni alisr rext rccover a nacive
voice ... .
\XIhere Spivak in inspecting rhe absence of a cexc rhat can answer back
after the planned epistemic violence of the imperialist projecr, finds pockets
of non-co-operation in che dubious place of the free will of the (female)
sexed subject' {Spivak l 985a: 144 ), Bhabha produces for scrutiny a
discursive situation making for recurrent instances of transgression
performed by the nacive from wirhi n and agai nst colonial discourse. Here
the autocolonization of che nacive who meets the requi rements of colonialist
address, is co-extensive with rhe evasions and 'sly civility' through which rhe
native refuses to sati sfy rhe demancl of the colonizer's narrative. This
concepr of mimicry has since been furrher developed in rhe postulare of
'hybridity' as the problema tic of colonial discourse.
. Bhabha contends that when re-articulatcd by the native, the colonialist
desl re for a reformed, recogni zable, nearly-simi lar orher, is enacted as
41
BENITA PARRY
parody, a dramari zation ro be disringuished from rhc 'cxercise of dependenr
colonial relarions through narcissisric idenrificarion.' For in rhe ' hybrid
momenr' whar rhe native rcwrites is not a copy of rhc colonialist original,
but a qualirarively different ching-in-irself, where misreadings and incon-
gruities expose che uncerrai nri es and ambiva lences of rhe colonialisr rexr
and deny ir an aurhori zing presence. Thus a textual insurrecri on againsr rhe
discourse of coloni al auchority is located in che narives' inrerrogarion of che
English book wirhin the rerms of rhei r own sysrem of cultural mcanings, a
displacement which is read back from rhe record wricren by coloni ali sm's
agenrs and ambassadors:
Through rhc narives' strange quesrions it is possiblc ro see, wirh
hi srorical hindsighr, whar rhey resisred in quesri oning the presence of
the English - as religious medi ation and as cultural and li nguisric
medium .... To rhe cxrcnr ro which di scourse is a form of defensive
warfare, rhen mimicry marks rhose momenrs of civil di sobedience
wirhin rhe di scipline of civiliry: signs of spcctacular rcsistance. When
rhc words of rhe master become rhc site of hybridity - rhe warlike sign
of rhe native - then we may not only read bcrween rhe li nes, but evcn
seck ro chnnge the oftcn cocrcive rea lit y that rhey so lucidl y conrain.
(Bhabha 1985a: 10 1, 104)
Dcspice a flagranrly ambivalcnr presenrarion which leaves it vulnerable
ro innocenr misconsrruction, Bhabha's theori zing succeeds in making
visible rhose moments when coloni al discourse already disturbed ac its
source by a doublcness of enunciation, is furr her subverred by the object of
irs address; when che scenario wri tten by colonialism is given a perfor-
mance by rhe native that esrranges and undermincs the colonialisr scripr.
The argumenr is nor rhar rhe coloni zed possesses colonial power, bur thac
its fraccu ri ng of rhe colonialist text by re-articularing ir in broken Engl ish,
perverrs rhe mcaning and message of the Engli sh book (' insigni a of colonial
authority and signifier of coloni al desi re and discipline,' 1985a: 89), and
rherefore makes an absolute exercise of powcr irnpossible.
A narra ti ve which dclivers rhc coloni zed from its discursive status as the
illegitimate and refracrory foil ro Europe, inro a position of 'hybri dicy' from
which it is able ro circumvent, chall enge and refuse colonial authority, has
no place for a roralizing norion of episcemic violence. Nor does che confli ctual
economy of rhc coloniali st texr all ow for rhe unimpcded opcraci on of
discursive aggression: ' Whar is arciculared in thc doublcness of colonial
discourse is nor rhe violence of one powerful nation writing out anorher
[bur] a mode of conrradictory uttcrance thar ambivalentl y re-inscri bes
borh coloniser and coloniscd.' The effecr of chis rhesis is ro displace rhe
traditional anri-colonialist represenrarion of anragonisri c forces locked in
srruggle, wirh a confi guration of discmsivc transacrions: ' The place of
di ffcrcnce and ocherness, or the space of the adversaria!, wirhin such a systern
of "disposal" as J've proposed, is nevcr entirely on rhc oursidc or implacably
opposirional.' (95)
42
CURRENT THEORI ES OF COLONIA L D!SCOURSE
ho
have been or are still engaged in colonial struggles againsr
Those w f
forms of imperialism could well read t 1e t 1eonz1ng o
ontemporary . h'
e 1 ,
5
rs with considerable disbelief at rhe construcnon t ts puts
discourse ana > 1 h 1
. n rhey are fighring agamM and rhe comest 111 w 11c t 1ey are
n rhe struauo 1 b
0
a ed. This is not a charge rhe .difficulry of r.he. a na yses ut an
eng g . rhar rhesc alcernattve narrattves of colontaltsm obscurc the
observauon ' F 1961
d
a
nd decisive struggle berween rwo procagontsts ( anon :
' mur erous . . . 1 l'b
d d
scount or wnre out rhe counrer-dtscourses whtc 1 every 1 era-
30) an 1 f . 1 . . 1 .
. ' e
1
r records. The significanr di ferences m t 1e cnttca practtces
uon movem 1 d b
f S
k and Bhabha are submerged in a shared programme marke y
o ptva . . . b 1 bl'
h
b
ration of discourse and a related mcunoSJty a our t 1e ena tng
t e exor 1 . . . . . .
10111
ic and polincal tnstttllttons and orher forms of soctal prax1s.
SOCIOeCOI . . .
F h more b
ecause rheir thescs admit of no pomr outstdc of clt scourse
urc er . d
from which opposirion can be engendered, rhetr prOJCCt 1s concerne . ro
1
111
cendiary devices within rhe dominanr srrucrures of represenranon
p ace . el S . . k . . 1
d ot ro confront these wtth anorher knowle ge. For ptva , tmpena -
bellicosity decimated rhe old culture and lc.fc rhe colonized
chour che ground frorn which rhey could urrer confronta nona! words; for
rhc srraragems and subterfuges ro which the narive resorted,
bilized the effectivity of the English book bur did nor wri tc an alrcrna uve
text _ with whose constitution Bhabha decl ines ro engagc, mainrai ning rhar
an anti-colonialist discourse ' requires an alrernative set of quesrions, rech-
niques and srraregies in arder 10 cons.rruct ir' 198).
Wichin another cri tica! mode whtch also reJCCts roraltz111g absrraccs of
power as falsifying siruations of dominati on and subordinacion, rh.e notion
of hegemony is inseparable from chat of a countcr-hegemony. In thts theory
of power and contest, t he process of procuring the consenr of the oppressed
and the marginali zed 10 rhe exisring srructme of relationships through
ideological inducements, neccssarily generares dissenr and rcsistance, since
the subject is conceived as being constirured by mcans of incommensurable
solicitations and hecerogeneous social pracri ccs. The ourcome of this
agonistic exchange, in which those acldrcssed chall enge rheir interl ocutors,
is that rhe hegemonic discoursc is ultimarely abandoned as scorched earch
when a differenr discourse, forged in the proccss of disobedience and
combar, occupying new, never-colonized and ' utopian' rerritory, and
prefiguring orher rclationships, valucs and aspirati ons, is enunciared. At a
time when dialectical rhi nking is nor the rage amongst colonial discourse
theorisrs, ir is instrucrive ro recall how Fanon's dialogical inrerrogati on of
European power and native insurrection reconsrrucrs a process of cultural
resistance and cultural disruption, participares in writing a texc thar
can answcr coloni ali sm back, and <t ntici pates <t norher condition bcyond
imperialism:
Facc to face wirh rhe white man, rhe has a pasr ro legitimare, a
vengeance ro extraer. ... In no way should 1 dedcate mysclf ro thc
43
BENITA PARRY
reviva! of an unjusdy unrecognizcd t\cgro 'ivi lization. 1 wi ll nm make
mrsclf a man of rhe past. ... 1 am nora prisoner of history; ir is only
b): going beyond rhe historical. instrumental hypothesis rhar 1 wi ll
iniciare the cp:le oi mr frccdom.
(F.mon 1952: 225-6, 229, 231)
The enabling condirions for Fanon's analysis are that an oppositional
discourse born in polirical struggle, and at rhe ourser invoki ng rhe pasr in
proresr againsr capirularing ro rhe colonizer's denigrations, supersedes a
commirmenr ro archaic native rradirions ar the same rime as ir rejects
colonialism's system of knowledge:
The colonialisr bourgeoisie had in facr deeply implanrcd in rhe minds
of rhc coloni sed intellectual thar rhe cssential qualitics remain eterna!
in spi tc of all the blunders mcn may make: the csscntial qualiries of che
Wcst, of course. The narivc inrell ecrual acceprcd thc cogcncy of thcsc
ideas and deep clown in his brain you could alwoys find a vigil ant
senrinel read)' ro defend rhe Greco-Latin pedestal. Now it so happcns
that during the srrugglc for liberarion, tH thc momcnt rhat rhe nari ve
inrell ectual comes inro rouch ag<J in wit h h i ~ pcoplc, thi !> arti ficial
senrinel is turned into dust. All the Mcditerranc<Jn va lues, - the
triumph of the human individual of clarit y and of bcaut y - become
lifeless, colourlcss knick-knacks. t\ ll rhose spccches sccm like collec-
tions oi dead words; rhose values whJCh seemed t0 tlplift thc soul :1rc
rc\'(:aled as worrhless, simply bccause rhey h:1ve nothing ro do wirh rhc
concrete conflicr in which thc people is cng<1ged.
(F:1non 196 1: 37-8)
While conceding rhe necessit y of defending rhe past in a movc away
from unqualified assimilarion of the occupying powcr's culture, Fanon
recognizes the limirations on the writer and imellecrual who urilize ' rech-
niques and language which are borrowed from thc trangcr in his country.'
Such rransitional writing reinrerpreting old lcgcnds 'in rhc light of a
borrowed aesrhericism and of a concepti on of the world which was
discovered under orher skies,' is for Fanon bur a prcludc lO a literaturc of
combar which \vil! disrupt lirerary stylcs and rhcmes . . . creare a
complerely ncw public' and mould the nari onal consciousness, 'giving it
form and conrours and flinging opcn befare it new and boundless
horizons.' Fanon's rheory projecrs a dcvclopmcnr insep<1rable from a
w mmunity's engagement in combari vc social acti on, during which a narive
contesr iniriall y enunciared in the invadcrs' language, culminares in a rejec
rion of imperialism's signifying sysrcm. This is a move which colonial
discourse rheory has not raken on board, and for such a process to be inves
rigared, a carrography of impcrialist ideology more cxtensive rhan its
address in the colonialist space, as well as a conceprion of rhc narive as
historical subjecr and agenr of an oppositional discourse is needed.
44
6
The Scramble for
Post-colonialism
STEPHEN SLEMON ::-
'POST-COLONIALISM', AS JT is now used in its various fields, de-scri bes a
remarkably heterogencous ser of subject positions, professional fi clds, and
critica! enterprises. Ir has been used as a way of ordering a critique of rotal-
ising forms of Westcrn hi sroricism; as a porrmanteau term for a reroolecl
notion of 'class', as a subser of borh postmodernism and posr-srructura lism
(and conversely, as thc condition from which those rwo srructures of cultural
logic and cultural critique rhemselves are seen to emerge); as rhe name for a
condition of nativist longing in posr-independence nacional groupings; as a
cultural marker of non-residcncy for a rhird-world inrellectual cadre; as rhe
inevitable underside of a fracrured and ambivalem discourse of colonialisr
power; asan opposirional form of 'reading pracrice'; and - and this was m y
first encounter with rhe rerm- as the na me for a category of ' lirerary' activity
whi ch sprang from a new and welcome polirical energy going on wirhi n what
used ro be call ed 'Commonwealth' literary srudies. The obvious rendency, in
the face of rh is hererogcnei ry, is ro understand 'posr-coloni alism' mosrly as
an objecr of desi re for cri ti ca( pracrice: as a shimmcring ra lisman thar in irself
has the power ro confer pol itical legi timacy onto specific forms of insti ru-
tionalised labour, especiall y on ones rhar are troubled by rheir mediared
position within the apparatus of institutional power. 1 rhink, howcvcr, rhar
this heterogcneity in rhe concepr of the 'post-colonial' - and here l mea n
within the university institution - comes about for much more pragmati c
reasons, and these ha ve ro do with a very real problem in securing the conccpt
of 'coloniali sm' itself, ns Wcsrern rheories of subjectification ancl its resis-
tances continue to dcvelop in sophisricarion and complexity.
The nature of colonialism as an economic and political srructure of
cross-cultural cl omination has of course occasioned a ser of deba tes bur it
. '
s not rcall y on this leve! rha r rhe 'question' of European colonialism has
troubled the va rious post-colonial fields of study. The problem, rather, is
From 'The Scramblc for Posr-colonialism' in Chris T ffin :1nd Alan Lawson {eds)
De-Scribing Empire: Post-colonialism and Textuality London: Roudedgc, 1994.
45
STEPHEN SLEMON
wirh the concept of coloni alism as an ideological or discursive formar
f IOn
t 1at .s, the. ways .which colonialism is vicwed as an appararus fo;
constttuttng sub)ecr posltlons through the ficld of represenrarion Jn a
d f . . . way
- an o course thts ts an extreme oversimplification - rhe debate ove
descri ption of multip!e srraregics for regulating
others can be expressed dtagrammaucall y (see Figure 1)
The wo.rks on a left-to-right
order of dommatton, Wtth lme A represennng vanous rheories of h
1 . ow
on: a rhroug.h dir.ect and cconomic control, and
and _DE dJffenng concepts of rhe ideological regu.
latton ot subJects, of_ through rhe manufacture of
consem. Theones that recogntse an rffi cacy ro colonialism rhat proc d
1 'A' . ee s
a ong_ are 111 essence 'brure force' or 'direct political' theories of
colont ahst oppression: .rhat is, they rejecr the basic thesis rhar power
soctal contradtction partly through rhe srrategic producrion of
spectfic tdeas of the 'self' - which subordinated groups then internalise
b ' 1' TI as
etng . . 1eones, h.owever, thar examine the trajcctory of colonialist
pnmanly along lme ' BC' - a line rcprescnring an ideological flank-
m_g the economic colonialism running along linc 'A'- focus on rhe con-
sttt utt ve power of srate appararuses li ke educarion, and rhe constitutive
regul.nors
(colonialisr educat ional apparatuscs)
/
B
e
A i ri
Colon iser ..................................
1
................. ................. Colonised
D
The semioti c fleld
(' rcxtuality')
/
E
Figure 1 Diagram representing rhe debate over the narure of colonialism
46
THE SCRAMBLE FOR POST-COLONIALISM
f fessional fields of knowledge wirhi n those apparatuses, in rhe
power proof colonialist relations. Along this line, Edward Said (1978)
P
roducuon f . , . h' 1 . T 1 1
. he political efficacy o 'onenta tsm wtt 111 co onta tsm; 1a a
examtnes t 1 f h 1
d (l973) and many orhers examme the ro e o ant ropo ogy m repro-
Asa. 1onial relarions; Alan Bishop (1990) examines the deployment of
ducmg co concepts of 'marhemarics' agai nst African school-children,
Wesrern h h f 1 fi Id f ' 1
h
Mitchell (1988) exammes ow t e pro ess10na e o po tttca
limot y h E 1 . . h
. , carne into being throug a uropean co onta tSt engagement wtt
sctence th ( 989) 1 f d
h
Ir res of Egypt; Gaun Vtswana an 1 exammes t 1e oun . attons
recuu .
1
. f
1
.
1
. .
f 'English' Jirerary srudies w1t 1111 a strucrure o co o111a tSt managemenr tn
0
1
d' This work keeps coming in, and the lisr of radically compromised
11
ta. h W JI b f ' 1 '
fessional fields withtn t e estern sy a us o mmanmes opttons
pro h f 1' ' O E' h d
ws daily Jonger. Theones t at ocus pnman y on me 111 t ts ta
gro h. 1 1 d 1 1
ram examine the ways 111 w tc 1 1 eo ogy repro uces co ont a tSt re attons
rhe strategic deploymenr of a vast semiotic fi eld of representarions
_
11
li terary works, in adverrising, in scu1pture, in travelogues, in explo-
ration documents, in maps, in pornography, and so on.
This pattern, as !' ve laid it out so far, does not seem especially
controversia! or problematic, bur rhe difficu1ties arise at the moment of
conceptualising the relation between colonialist professional fi elds and
institutions (at the rop of rhe diagram) and rhe who1e field of representation
(at the bottom of rhe diagram)- the field of ' rexrua1ity' and irs investmenr
in reproducing and naturalising rhe srructures of power. To take up one
example of this paradigmatically: in Edward Said's work on Orientalism,
colonialisr power is seen ro operare through a complex relationship
between appararuses placed on li ne 'F', where in the first instance a schol-
arl y educational appararus called 'Oriemalism' - at the top of the line -
appropriates textual representations of 'rhe Orient' in order ro consolidare
itself as a discipline and ro reproduce ' che Orient' as a deployable unir of
know1edge. So, in rhe first instance, co1onialist power in Said's argument
runs not just through rhe middle ground of rhis chart but rhrough a com-
plex ser of relations happening along line 'F'; and since Said's rhesis is rhat
a function at the rop of this line is employing those represenrations creared
at the bottom of the li ne in order to make up ' knowledges' that have an
ideo1ogical function, you can say that the vector of motion along li ne F is
an upward one, and that this upwa rd motion is part of the whole complex,
discursive strucrure whereby 'Orientalism' manufactures the 'Orient' and
thus helps to regulare coloni alisr relations. That is Said's first position - that
under Orienralism the vector of line 'F' is upward. But in Said's analysis,
colonialist power also runs through li ne F in a downward movement,
where the scholarl y apparatus of Orientalism is understood ro be at
work in the producrion of a purely fantasric and entirely projected idea
of the 'Orienr'. The point is rhat in rhe process of understanding rhe
multivalenr nature of colonialist discourse in rerms of the historical specific
of 'Orientalism', Said's model becomes srructurally ambivalent - under
47
STEPH EN SLEMON
'Orientalism', the ' Orient' turns out to be something produced borh asan
object of scholarly knowledge and as a location for psychi c projecrion _
and !'ve tried ro graph this ambivalence as a double movement or vector
along line 'F'. For Said, rhe mechanism thar produces rhis ' Orienr', then
,
has ro be undersrood as something capable of deployi ng an ambivalent
structure of relations along line 'F', and deploying thar srrucrure towards a
unilied end. And so Said (and here I'm followi ng Robert Young's (1990)
analysis of rhe problem) ends up referring the whole strucrure of colonial-
ist discourse back ro a single and monoli rhic originating inrenrion within
colonialism, rhe intention of coloniali st power ro possess the rerrain of its
Orhers. Thar assumprion of intenrion is basicall y where Said's theory has
proven to be most controversia!.
Said's rext is an important one here, for as Robert Young has shown,
Said's work stands at rhe headwarers of colonial discourse theory, and this
ambivalence in Said's model may in fact ini tiate a (owrdational ambiva-
lence in the critica! work which comes out of this lield. This ambi valence
sets the rerms for what are now the two central debates within colonial
discourse rheory: the debate over hisrorical specificity, and the debate over
agency.
The li rsr debate- the debate over the problem of historical specificity
in the model - concerns the inconclusive relation berween actual historical
moments in rhe colonialist enrerprise and rhe larger, possibly trans-
historical discursive formation that colonial discourse rheory posits in its
artempt to understand the mulrivalent straregies ar work in colonialist
power. Can you look at 'colonial discourse' only by examini ng what are
rakcn ro be paradigmatic moments within colonialisr history?
lf so, can you extrapolare a modality of 'colonialism' from one
hisrorical momenr ro rhe nexr? Does discursive colonialism always look
srructurally rhe same, or do rhe specifics of irs textual or semiotic or
representational manoeuvres shift registers ar different historical times and
in different kinds of colonial encounters? And what would ir mean ro think
of colonial discourse as a ser of exchanges rhar funcri on in similar ways for
all sorrs of colonialisr strategies in a vastly differenr ser of cultural
locations? These questions of hisrorical spccilicity, though always a
problem for social theory, are especiall y diflicult ones for colonialist
discourse rhcory, and rhe reason for this is thar this rheory quite appro
priately refuses ro articulare a simplistic strucrure of social causal ity in rhe
relation between colonialist instirutions and rhe field of represenrarions. In
orher words, colonial discourse rheory recognises a radical ambivalence at
work in colonialist power, and that is rhe ambivalence 1 have attempted to
show in Fig. 1 as a double moment in vector at the leve! of line ' F'.
To clarify rhis 1 wanr ro rnake use of Gauri Yiswanarhan's important
work on Britai n's ideological control of colonised people through the
deploymenr of colonialist educational srrategies in ninereenrh-cenrury
India. Obviously, the question of what happens along line 'F' can only be
48
THE. SCRAMBLE. FOR POST-COLONIA LISM
dd ssed by specific reference to imrnediate hisrorical conditions, and
a re piece of archaeological work on colonialisr power will want ro for-
every f 1 h 1 1 1 1
late rhe vector o acnon 1ere Wlt parr1cu ar sensmvty ro t 1e oca con-
ns under analysis. Viswanarhan researches this part of the puzzle with
attention. ro and at her is. that colonial-
. ducarion in India (wh1ch would stand m as rhe Ideologcal apparatus
ISt rop of rhe diagram) srraregicall y and imemionally deployed rhe vasr
of ca nonical English 'l irerarure' (rhe lield of represenrarions ar rhe
botrom of rhe diagram) in order ro consrruct a cadre of 'native' mediators
between rhe Brirish Raj and rhe actual producers of wealth. The poi nt hcre
is that Vi swanathan's analysis employs a purel y upward vector of rnorion
ro characrerisc rhe specilics of how power is ar work along line 'P in rhe
di agram, and what secures rhis vector is Yiswanarhan's scrupulous arten-
tion ro the immediate condirions rhat apply within British and lndian
coloni al relarions.
The problem, though - and here I mean the problem for colonial
discourse theory- is rhat rhe foundarional ambivalencc or clouble movcment
rhat Said's work inserrs into rhe model of colonialist discourse analysis
always seems to rerurn ro rhe field; and it does so through critica! work
rhat on its own terms suggesrs a counrer-flow along li ne 'F' at the sarnc
moment of colonialist history. Thar is, the residual ambivalence in the vector
of line 'F' wirhin colonial discourse theory seems ro invite rhe fusion of
Yiswanathan's kind of analysis wirh critica! readings rhat would articulare a
downward movement ar rhis place in rhe diagrarn; and one of rhe areas such
work is now enrering is rhe analysis of how English li terary acriviry of the
period (at rhe bottom of line 'F') suddenly turned ro the representation of
educational processes (at the rop of rhe line), and why this lircrarure should
so immediately concern irself wirh rhe invesrmenrs of educacional represen-
tations in the colonialist scene. In examining rhe place of English lirerary
activity withi n rhis momenr of coloniali sr hisrory, that is, a critic such as
Patrick Brantlingcr would want ro argue for the va lency of texts such as j an e
Eyre or Tom Broum's Schoo/ Days within colonialist discursive powcr, and
colonialist discourse rheory would wanr ro undersrand how both kinds of
?iscursive regul ation, both vecrors of movernent along line ' F', are at work
111 a specific hisrori cal momenr of coloniali sr relations. Because of Said's
in charring our the complex of Ori entalism a long line 'f', 1 arn
argumg, the fielcl of colonial ist cli scourse rheory carries rhar scnse of ambiva-
and looks ro an cxtraordinary valency of movement wirhin
Its arti culation of colonialisr power. The ambivalence makes our under-
of colonial operarions a great deal clearer for historical periods bur
It upsets the posiri vism of highl y specific analyses of colonialisr power
gomg on within a period.
, , The basic projecr of colonial discourse rheoq is to push out from line
A and try ro define colonialism both as a ser of polirical relations
and as a signifying sysrem, one with ambivalenr srrucrural relarions. 1t is
49
STEPHEN SLEMON
remarkably clarifying in its articul ation of the producrive relari ons between
seemingly disparate momenrs in coloniali st power (the strucrure of literary
educati on in India, rhe li terary practice of represcnring educarional control
in Brirain), but because it recognises an ambivalence in colonial isr power,
colonial discourse rheory results in a concepr of colonialism rhat cannot be
hisroricised modally, and that ends up being tiltcd rowards a description
of all kinds of social oppression and discursive control. For some critics,
this ambivalence bankrupts the fiel d. But for orhers, rhe concepr of
'coloni al ism' - like the concept of 'patriarch>' ' for feminism, which shares
this strucrure of transhistoricali ty and lack of specifi ci ty - remains an indis-
pensable conceptual category of critica! analysis, and an indispensable too!
in securing our understanding of ideological dominati on under colonialism
ro the leve! of political economy.
The first big debate goi ng on within colonialist discourse theory, then,
is a debate over what happens when a modcl of 'colonial discourse' is
carried beyond its scattered moments of archaeologicnl research and is
taken up as a general strucrure of oppression. r wanr now to turn to the
second big debate goi ng on between rheori srs of colonialisr discourse; and
rhat is rhe debate over the question of agency under colonialist power.
Basicall y, the question of agency can be resratcd as a question of who or
what acrs oppositionally, when ideology or discoursc or psychic processes
of some kind construct human subjecrs, and rhe quesrion of specifyi ng
agency is becoming an extreme! y complex one in all forms of critica! rheory
at presenr. Again, however, rhis debate has especial urgency wirhin colonial
discourse rheory, and, again, thar is because this theory recognises founda-
tionally that rhe vector of line 'F' in Fig. l remains ambi valenr at eveqr
momenr of colonialist discursive control. ...
I wanr ro stress rhe presupposirional locarion of this post-colonial
scramble - 1 wanr ro articulare its foundarions wirhin the problemaric of
coloni al discourse rheory and wirhin an unresolved debate within the
Western humanities institution - because 1 suspect rluH at times workers in
vari ous orders of post-colonial analysis are made ro feel a disempowering
energy at work in their field - a disempowenncnr which srems from thei r
sense rhat these debates oughr ro be resolved wirhin post-colonial scudies
itself. And 1 also raise the quesri on of an effccr ro thcsc debates, not beca use
1 wanr ro suggest they are anyt hing other tha n cruci: J oncs for rhe field,
but because 1 rhi nk rhe terrain of post-colonial studies remains in danger
of becoming colonised by compering academic merhodologies, and being
reparcell ed into insritutional pursuirs th<l t have no abiding inrerest in the
specifics of either colonialisr hisrory or post-coloni al agency. One of the
mosr exci ting research projecrs now going on in colonial discourse analysis,
for example, is Homi Bhabh:'s theorising of coloniali st ambivalence, and
his attempr ro carry rhar analysis forward ro a wholesale cri tique of
Western moderni t}' Ir is possibly insrrucrive, rherefore, rhat in rhe process
of expressing admi ration for his work, rhe posr-structuralist criric Roberr
50
TH E SCRAMBLE. FOR POST-COLONIALISM
Young inserts Bhabha 's projecr in ro a narra ti ve of unpackaging whose
rerms of reference are enrirely European in origin: rhe radical resrruccuring
of European hisroriography, and rhe allocarion of alterity ro the rhearre of
rhe European posrmodern.
Along parallel lines, ir is also insrrucrive rhar Henry Louis Cates Jr.
notes in Spivak's deconsrrucrive brilliance a remarkable conflarion berween
colonial discourse and Derrida's concepr of writing itself- an argument,
rhar is, rhat rhere is 'nothing outside of (rhe discourse of) colonialism', and
rhat all discourse musr be norhing orher than coloni al discourse irself.
Cates warns of a hidden consequence in rhis elevation in ascendency of the
colonial paradigm by quesrioning whar happens when we elide, for
example, ' rhe disrance between political repression and individual neurosis:
rhe positional disrance berween Sreve Biko and, say, Woody All en?' (Cates
1991: 466) His argumenr is thar academic inrerest in this history and rhe
discourse of colonialism bicis fair to become rhe lasr basrion for rhe project
of global theory and for European universalism itsel f, and he asks us
whether we reall y nccd to choose berween opposirional critics whose
arriculations of thc post-colonial institutionalise rhemselves as agonisric
struggles over a rhoroughly disciplined rerrain.
1 would like ro echo Gares' sentiments in rhe face of rhis balkanisarion
and in the absence of any real solurions ro rhis crisis in the field I'd like ro
offer a two-parr credo rowards post-colonial work as it rakes place wirhin
rhe Wesrern ac:demic insrirurion. First, 1 rhink, post-colonial srudies, if
norhing else, needs ro becomc more rolerant of merhodological difference,
ar leasr when rhar difference is articulared rowards emanciparory anri-
colonialisr ends. 1 am reminded thar the gre<'lt war wirhin rhe Wesrern
'humaniries' is carried on rhc back of critica! merhodology and its
competing orders, :nd thar in many ways rhe subjecr-making funcrion of
rhe humaniries is effecred precisely in rhat debate. I have seen no evidence
thar rhe humanirics c: rry any special brief for rhe global projecr of
decolonisarion, and so 1 would desperately want ro preserve rhis funcri on
of decolonising commitmenr for post-colonial studies, despite irs neccssary
invesrmenr in and ironic reJ:rion ro rhe humanities complex. I am suspi-
cious of thc kind of argument thar would insisr on the necessary confl ation
of rhe diagram 1 pur forwa rd in this paper wirh a colonia list all egorical
function, bur 1 can sce how rhe argumenr could be rnade. The rools for
conceput:'l l disempowermcnr in rhe struggle over rnerhod are going ro
remain avail able wirhin post-colonial srudies, but r remain suspicious of
and 1 rhink intolerant calls for homogeneiry in a field of study
wh1ch embraces radicall y differenr forms :nd functions of coloniali st
oppression and radically differenr notions of <'lnti-colonialist agency.
. is never si mply passive, and, ironically, the arca of instiru-
ttonallsed post-colonial srudies is fi nding irself increasingly invesred in an
academic srar sysrem of asronishing proportions, and rhrough rhar srar
sysrem ir is learning ro seek irs insrrucrion in opposirional racrics along lines
51
STEPH EN SLEMON
that run increasingly and monolirhi cally backward towards the centres of
Western power. 1 cannot help noticing, for examplc, that in what Hortense
Spillers calls the politics of mention, our thcoreti cal masters in Paris or
Oxford or New Haven are read and referenced by exemplary theorists of
the local- the critic J. Michael Dash at the Mona campus in Jamaica is an
example - but those metropolitan theorists seldom reference these cultural
and mediators in return. Post-colonial srudics should have an
investmem in open talk across cultural locations, however, and across
methodological dynasties; and 1 think we do damage ro the idea of posr-
coloniality at an immediate political leve! when that invesrmem in cross-
talk runs only one way.
As for the second part of this credo, 1 believe that post-colonial studies
nceds always to remern ber that its referent in rhe real world is a form of
political, economic, and discursivc oppression whose name, first and last,
is colonialism. The forms of colonialist power differ radicall y across
cultural locations, and its intersecti ons with other orders of oppression are
always complex and multivalent. But, wherever a globali sed theory of rhe
colonial might lead us, we need to remember rhat resistances ro colonialist
power always find material presence at the leve! of the local, and so che
research and training we carry out in rhe field of posr-colonialism, what-
ever else it does, must always find ways ro address the local, if only on the
order of material applications. If wc overlook the local, and rhe political
applications of the research we produce, we risk turning thc work of our
field imo the playful operations of an academic glass-bcad game, whose
project will remain ar best a descriprion of global rclations, and nota script
for their change. There is never a necessary polirics to the study of politi-
cal actions and reactions; bur at the leve! of rhc local, and at rhe leve! of
material applications, posr-colonialism musr address the material exigen-
ces of colonialism and neo-colonialism, including the neo-colonialism of
Western academic institutions themselves.
52
PART II
Universality and
Difference
PJIILIP G. ALTBACH
permitted developing coumri es to reprint and/or translate educarional
marerials more freely rhan befare andar modesr cosr (Unesco 1973). Th
changes, made when rhe industrialized narions bcgan ro real ize thar co
. 1 b . . 1 d . 1 . . f py
ng 1t agreemems were emg VIO ate w1r 1 mcrcasmg requency, wi ll
doubr help the developing coumries ro obrain rhe prinred marerials thno
need at prices rhey can afford. . . . ey
The following suggestions are intended ro provide some ideas which
can be easil y implememed and which rnay help ro arneliorare the existing
inequalities in the worid of books and publi shing ....
As a fi rst step, communications between Third World narions should
be improved so rhat common problems and issues can be discussed directly
wirhout being mediared through institutions and publications in the indus-
trializcd nations. This is particularly importanr on a regional basis, for
example, among the narions of Francophone i\ frica ancl of Southeast Asia.
As a part of communi cations development, Third World counrries must
also creare viable means of book distribution among rhemselves, and
between themselves and rhe indusrriali zed nntions.
With rhe strengthening of indigenous publishing and interna! distribu-
ri on facilities in rhe Third World, inrellecruals need not publish their work
abroad. Such an effort should include financia! and rechnical assisra nce from
rhe public sector when necessary. Foreign scholars working in developing
nations should publish rheir findings in the countries where rhey conducr
rheir research. ln this way local publishing will be srrengrhened and relevant
research will be avai lable ro local audienccs. The imellccrual infrasrrucrure
in many Third World countries needs ro be strengrhened in orher ways.
Libraries, journals which review books, and bibliographical and publiciry
rools for publishing should be supported.
In addirion, rnajor national policy quesri ons which relate directly ro
books, including rhe language of insrrucrion in rhe educarional sysrem,
levels of lireracy and the ownership of rhe publishing appararus, must be
solvcd by Third \XIorld governrnents wirh an understanding of their irnpli-
cari ons for rhe balance of intellecrual producti on. Part of any language
reform effort should be assisrance ro publishing in indigcnous languages.
Fi nally, Third World leaders must carefull y evaluare foreign aid programs
to ensure thar their nations benefi t wirhout local publishing industries or
intell ectual autonomy being undermined.
490
-
Bibliography
Abramson, Harold J. (1973) Ethnic Oiversity in Catholic America, New York
and London: John Wiley.
Achebe, Chinua (1958) Things Fa// Apart, London: Heinemann.
Achebe, Chi nua (1971) Beware, Soul Brother, London: Heinemann.
Achebe, Chinua (1973) 'Named for Victoria, Oueen of England' New Letters
40(1) (Fall): 15- 22.
Achebe, Chinua (1973) 'Where Angels Fear to Tread' , in G. D. Kill am (ed.)
African Writers on African Writng, London: Heinemann.
Achebe, Chinua (1974) Arrow of God, 2nd ed., London: Heinemann.
Achebe, Chinua (1975) Morning Yet on Creation Oay, Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Achebe, Chinua (1988) Hopes and lmpediments: Se/ected Essays 1965- 1987,
London: Heinemann.
Ada m, lan and Helen liffin (eds) (1991 ) Past the Last Post: Theorizing Post-
colonialism and Post-modernism, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Agnew, J ean-Christophe (1983) 'The Consuming Vision of Henry James' ,
in Richard Wrightman Fox and T. J . Jackson Lears (eds) The Culture
of Critica! Essays in American History, New York:
Pantheon.
Ahmad, Aijaz (1987) 'Jameson's Rhetoric of Otherness and the "National
All egory" ', Social Text 17: 3- 25.
Akshara, K. V. (1984) 'Western Responses to Traditi onal lndian Theatre',
Journal of Arts and Ideas 8 (July-September).
Alxis, J acques Stephen (1956) 'Of the Marvellous Realism of the Haitians',
Prsence Africaine 8- 10.
Alxis, J acques Stephen (1960) Romancero aux toiles, Paris: Galli mard.
Allen, Philip ( 1971) 'Bound to Violence by Yambo Ouloguem', Pan-African
Journal iv(4) (Fall): 518-23.
Altbach, Phi lip G. (1971) 'Education and Neocolonialism', Teachers Col/ege
Record 72(1) (May): 543- 58.
Altbach, Philip G. (1975a) ' Literary Colonialism: Books in the Third World',
Harvard Educational Review 15(2) (May): 226- 36.
Altbach, Philip G. (1975b) 'Publishing and the lntellectual System', in Annals
of the American Academy of Po/itical and Social Science.
Althusser, Louis (1972) Montesquieu, Rousseau, Marx, London: Verso.
491
BIBL!OGRAPII Y
Alvarez, A. (1971) The Savage God, London: Wedenfeld & Nicolson
Amin, Samir (1977) lmperialism and Unequal Development, N e ~ York
Monthly Revi ew Press.
Amuta, Chidi (1989) The Theory of African Literatura, London and New
Jersey: Zed Books.
Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imaginad Communities Reflections on the o
ngtn
and Spread of Nationalism, London and New York: Verso.
Andreski, Iris (1971) Old Wives' Tales, New York: Schocken.
Annamalai, E. (1978) ' The Angl icized lndian Languages: A Case of Cod _
Mixing', lnternational Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 7(2): 239- 47. e
Appiah, Kwame Anthony (1991) 'ls the Post- i n Postmodernism the Post- i
Postcolonial?', Criticallnquiry 17(2) (Wint er): 336- 57. n
Appiah, Kwame Anthony (1992) In My Father's House: Africa in the
Philosophy of Culture, London: Methuen.
Aquin, Hubert (1968) Trou de Mmoire, Ottawa: Cercle du Livre de France.
Armah, Ayi Kwei (1975) ' Struggles to Find a Local Publisher', Asemka 4
(Unversity of Cape Coast Press).
Arnold, David and David Hardiman ( 1992) ' The Colonial Prison: Power,
Knowledge and Penology in Nineteenth Century India', in Ranajit Guha
(ed.) Subaltern Studies 8 Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Asad, Tolal (1973) Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter, London: lthaca
Press.
Ashby, Eric (1967) Universities: British, lndian, African, Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin (1989) The Empire Writes
Back: Theory and Practica in Post-colonial Litera tu res, London: Routledge.
Ashcroft, W. D. (1989) 'Constitutiva Graphonomy' in Stephen Slemon and
Helen Tiffin (eds) After Europe: Critica/ Theory and Post-colonial Writing,
Mundelstrup: Dangaroo.
Atodevi, Stan.i slas, S. (1972) Ngritude et ngrologues, Paris: Union
Gnrale d'Editions.
Atwood, Margaret (1972a) Surfacing, Toronto: McCielland & Stewart.
Atwood, Margaret, (1972b) Survival, Toronto: Anansi .
Atwood, Margaret (1985) The Handmaid's Tale, Toronto: McCielland &
Stewart.
Austin, J. L. (1962) How todo Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bai l, Murray (1980) Homesickness, Melbourne: Macmi llan.
Bai ley, Herbert Jr. (1970) The Art and Science of Book Publishing, New York:
Harper & Row.
Bai llie, Robert (1986) Les Voyants, Montreal: Hexagone.
Baker, Houston A. Jr. (1986} 'Cal iban's Tripl e Play', Critica/ lnquiry 13(1):
182-96.
Bakhti n, M. M. (1975) 'Epic and Novel: Toward a Methodology for the Study
of the Novel', in The Dialogic lmagination: Four Essays, ed. Mi chael
Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Mi chael Holquist (1981), Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984} Rabelais and His World, Bloomi ngton, lnd.: Indiana
University Press.
Baldwin, James (1964) Notes of A Native Son, London: Mi chael Joseph.
492
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ban Kah Choon (1979) 'A Review of Creativa Writing in Singapore, 1978'
Commentary 3, (3): 18- 26.
Baran, Paul A. (1962) Poltica/ Economy of Growth, New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Barker, Francis (ed.) ( 1983) The Politics of Theory, Colchester: University of Essex.
Barker, Ronald and Robert Escarpit (1973) The Book Hunger, Paris:
UNESCO.
Barnett, Stanley and Robert Piggford (1969) Manual on Book and Library
Aclivities in Developing Countries, Washington, DC: Agency for
lnternational Development.
Barth, Frederick (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social
Organisation of Culture Difference, Boston: Little, Brown.
Barthes, Rol and (1957) Mythologies, Paris: Seuil; trans. Annette Laneas
(1972), London: Jonathan Cape.
Barthes, Roland ( 1970) E m pire of Signs, Paris: Seuil; trans. Richard Howard
(1983), London: Jonathan Cape.
Bebey, Francis (1979) 'Paris lnterview', 20 August 1977, ci ted by Norman
Stockle in 'Towards an Africanisation of the Novel: Francis Bebey's
Narrativa Technque', in Kolawole Ogunbesan (ed.) (1979) New West
African Literatura, London: Heinemann.
Benj amn, Curtis (1969) Books as Forces in National Development and
lnternational Relations, New York: National Foreign Trade Council.
Benjamn, Walter (1973) Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High
Capitalism, trans. Harry Zohn, London: New Left Books.
Berndt, Ronald M. (1954) Arnhem Land: lts History and lts People,
Melbourne: Cheshi re.
Berry, Reginald (1986) 'A Deckchair of Words: Post-colonialism, Post-mod-
ernism, and the Novel of Self-Projection in Canada and New Zealand',
Landfa/140: 310- 23.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1983a) 'Di fference, Discriminati on and the Discourse of
Colonialism', in The Politics of Theory, Proceedings of the Essex
Conference on the Sociology of Literatura, July 1982, Colchester:
Universi ty of Essex.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1983b) 'The Other Ouestion ... Homi Bhabha Reconsiders
the Stereotype and Colonial Discourse', Screen 24 (November- December):
18- 36 (First publ ished in Barker 1983).
Bhabha, Hom K. ( 1984a) 'Representation and the Colonial Text: A Critica!
Exploraton of Sorne Forms of Mimeticism', in Frank Gloversmi th (ed.) The
Theory of Reading, Brighton: Harvester.
Bhabha, Hom K. (1984b) 'Of Mi micry and Men: The Ambi valence of Colonial
Discourse', October 28: 125- 33.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1985a) 'Signs Taken for Wonders: Ouestions of
Ambivalence and Authority Under a Tree Outside Delhi, May 1817, in
Francis Barker et al. (eds) Europe and lts Others Vol.l, Proceedi ngs of the
Essex Conference on the Sociology of Literatura Jul y 1984, Colchester:
University of Essex; also Criticallnquiry 12 (1985): 144- 65.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1985b) 'Siy Civi lity', October 34: 71- 8.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1988) ' The Commitment t o Theory', New Formations 5:
5- 23.
493
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhabha, Homi K. (ed.) (199_0) Naton and Narration, London: Routled
Bhely-Ouenum, O. (1982) 'Ecriture noire en question (dbat)' Notre L . ..
65. '
1
rame
Bishop, Alan J. (1990) 'Western Mathematics: The Secret Weapon of e
1
lmperial ism', Race and Class 32(2): 51- 65. u tural
Bokamba, Fyamba G. (1982) Africanization of English', in Braj B. Kachru
(ed.) The Other Tongue: Engltsh Across Cultures, Oxford and New York
Pergamon Press.
Botros . Salib ( 1978) 'Problems of Book Development in the Arab World with
Specral Reference to Egypt', Library Trends (Spring).
(1982) 'Entering Our Own lgnorance: Subject- Object
Relatrons rn Commonwealth Lrterature', World Literatura Written
English 21(2) (Summer): 218-40. tn
Brantlinger, P. (1988) Rule of Darkness: 8ritish Literatura and fmperialis
1830- 1914, lthaca: Cornell University Press. m
Brathwaite, Edwar.d Kamau (1967) 'Caribbean Theme: A Calypso', sung by
the author on Rtghts of Passage (1969), London: Argo Records.
Brathwaite, Edward Kamau (1967-8) 'Jazz and the West lndian Novel', Part 1
8/M Xl(44) (1967): 275-84; Part 11 8/M Xl l(45) (1967): 39- 51; Part 111 8/M
Xll(46) (1968): 115-26.
Brathwaite, Edward Kamau (1971) The Development of Creo/e Society in
Jamaica 1770- 1820, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brathwaite, Edward Kamau (1973) The Arrivants, London: Oxford University
Press.
Brathwaite, Edward Kamau, (1975) Other Exiles, London: Oxford University
Press.
Brathwaite, Edward Kamau (1984) History of the Voice: The Development of
Nation Language in Anglophone Caribbean Poetry, London and Port of
Spain: New Beacon.
Brennan, Timothy (1990) 'The National Longing For Form', in Homi K.
Bhabha (ed.) Nation and Narration, London: Routledge.
Brilliant, Lawrence, with Girija Brilliant (1978) ' Death for a Killer Disease',
Ouest 3 (May/June): 1-16.
Brodber, Erna ( 1989) 'Sieeping's Beauty and the Prince Charming', Kunapipi
11(3): 1- 4.
Bronte, Charlotte [1847] (1980) Jane Eyre, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Brown, David A. Maughan (1985) Land, Freedom and Fiction: History and
ldeology in Kenya, London: Zed Books.
Brown, Lester R. (1984) 'Putting Food on the World's Table: A Crisis of Many
Dimensions', Environment 26(4) (May): 14- 26.
Brown, Russell M. (1978) 'Critic, Culture, Text: Beyond Thematics', Essays on
Canadian Writing 11 (Summer): 151- 83.
Brydon, Diana (1987) 'The Myths that Write Us: Decolonising the Mind',
Commonwealth 10(1): 1-14.
Brydon, Diana (1988) 'Troppo Agitato: Reading and Writing Cultures in
Randolph Stow's Visitants and Rudy Wiebe's The Temptations of Big
Bear', Arie/19(1): 13-32.
Brydon, Diana (1991) 'The White lnuit Speaks: Contamination as Literary
494
Bl BLIOGRAPHY
Strategy', in lan Adam and Hel en Tiffin (eds) Past the Last Post: Theorizing
Post-colonialism and Post-modernism, New York and London: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Bulbeck, Chilla (1991) Unpublished Paper, Faculty of Humanities Research
Seminar, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland.
Cabral, Amilcar (1973) Return to the Sources: Selected Speeches, New York
and London: Monthly Review Press.
Cairns, David and Shaun Richards (1988) 'What lsh My Nation?', in Writing
freland: Colonialism, Nationalism and Culture, Cultural Politics Series,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Carby, Hazel V. (1982) 'White Woman Listen! Black Feminism and the
Boundaries of Sisterhood', in Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies,
University of Birmingham, The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in
70s Britain, London: Hutchinson.
Carby, Hazel V. (1987) Reconstructing Womanhood: The Emergence of the
Afro-American Woman Novelist, New York: Oxford University Press.
Carpentier, Alejo (1972) Explosion in a Cathedral, trans. John Stllrrock,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Carter, Paul (1987) The Road to Botany Bay: An Essay in Spatial History,
London: Faber.
Cary, Joyce, (1949) Aissa Saved, London: Michael Joseph.
Cary, Joyce (1961) Mister Johnson, London: Longman.
Cathcart, Sarah and Andrea Lemon (1988) The Serpent's Fa/1, Sydney:
Currency.
Csaire, Aim (1946) Et les chiens se taisaient, in Les Armes Miracu/euses,
Paris: Gall i mard.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh (1992) ' Postcoloniality and the Artfice of History: Who
Speaks for "lndian" Pasts?', Representations 32 (Winter): 1- 26.
Chang, Jen Hu (1970) 'Potential Photosynthesis and Crop Productivity' ,
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 60 (March): 92- 101.
Chatterjee, Partha (1986) 'Nationalism as a Problem', in Nationalist Thought
and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse, Tokyo and London: Zed
Books for United Nations University.
Chernoff, John Millar (1979) (1981) Aesthetics and Social Action in African
Socialldioms, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Chinweizu, Onwuchekwu Jeme and lhechukwu Madubuike (1985) Towards
the Decolonization of African Literature, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chow, Rey (1986- 7) 'Rereading the Mandarn Ducks and Butterfli es: A
Response to the Postmodern Condition', Cultural Critique 5: 69- 93.
Christian, Barbara (1987) 'The Race for Theory', Cultural Critique 6: 51- 63.
Clark, John Pepper (1972) in Dennis Duerden and Cosmo Pieterse (eds)
African Writers Talking: A Col/ection of Radio lnterviews, London:
Heinemann; New York: Africana.
Clifford, James (1980) Review of Orientalism, by Edward Said, in History and
Theory 12(2): 204- 23.
Closs, M. P. (1986) Native American Mathematics, Austin, Texas: University
of Texas Press.
Cohen, Leonard (1966) Beautiful Losers, New York: Viking Press.
Columbus, Christopher (1825) (1960) The Journal of Christopher Columbus,
495
BIBLIOGRAPHY
'discovered' 1791, trans. Cecil Jane 1825, revised edn. Louis-Andr
Vigneras, London: Anthony Blond.
Conrad, Joseph (1902) Heart of Darkness, ed. Paul O'Prey (
19831
,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Conrad, Joseph (1925) (1945) Nigger of the Narcissus, London: Dent
Cooley, Dennis (1987) The Vernacular Muse: The Eye and E .
e L
o w o ar m
ontemporary 1terature, mn1peg: Turnstone.
Coombes, Orde (ed.) (1974) ls Massa Day Dead? 81ack Moods in th
Caribbean, New York: Doubleday.
8
Crapanzano, Vincent (1985) 'A Reportar at Larga', New Yorker March
18
.
8- 10. o
Crosby, Alfred W. (1986) Ecologicallmperialism: The 8iologica/ Expansion of
Europa 900- 1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curnow, Allen (1962) A Sma/1 Room wth Larga Windows, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dash, Mchael J. (1974) ' Marvellous Realsm: The Way out of Ngritude'
Caribbean Studies 13(4): 57-70. '
Dash, Mi chael (1989) 'In Search of the Lost Body: Redefining the Subject in
Caribbean Literatura', Kunapipi 11(1): 17- 26.
Dathorne, O.R. (1974) The 8/ack Mind, Minneapolis: Minneapolis University
Press.
Davey, Frank (1988) Reading Canadian Reading, Winnipeg: Turnstone.
Davies, Robertson (1972) The Manticore, Toronto: Macmill an.
Davis, Gregson (ed.) (1984) Twenty Poems of Aim Csaire, Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Davis, Jack (1982) Kul/ark/The Dreamers, Sydney: Currency.
Davis, Jack (1986) No Sugar, Sydney: Currency.
Davis, Jack and Bob Hodge (eds) (1985) Aboriginal Writing Today: Papers
from the First National Conference of Aboriginal Writers Held in Perth,
Western Australia 1983, Canberra: Australi an lnsti tute of Aboriginal
Studies.
Dawes, Neville (1960) The Last Enchantment, London: MacGibbon & Kee.
de Lauretis, Teresa (1984) Alice Doesn't: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema,
Bloomington, lnd.: Indiana University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles and Flix Guattari (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism
and Schizophrenia, trans. B. Massumi, Minneapols: Universty of
Minnesota Press.
Depestre, Ren (1977) Rainbow for the Christian West, trans. Joan Dayan,
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Derrida, Jacques (1981) 'The Oouble Session', in Dissemination, trans.
Barbara Johnson, Chicago: Universty of Chicago Press.
Oesjardins, Thierry (1976) Le Martyre du Liban, Pars: Plon.
Dinesen, lsak [Karen Blixen) (1937) Out of Africa, London: Puttnam.
Docker, John (1978) 'The Neocolonial Assumption in University Teaching of
English', in Chri s Tiffin (ed.) South Pacific lmages, St. Lucia, Oueensland,
SPACLALS.
Donaldson, Laura E. (1988) 'The Miranda Complex: Colonialism and the
Ouestion of Feminist Reading', Diacritics 18(3): 65- 77.
Dorfman, Ariel (1983) The Empire's 0/d Clothes, New York: Pantheon.
496
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Oorsinvi lle, Max (1974) Ca/iban Without Prospero: Essay on Ouebec 8/ack
Literatura, Erin, Ontario: Press Porcepic.
oorsinville, Max (1983) Le Pays natal: essais sur les /ittratures du Tiers
Monde et du Qubec, Dakar: Nouvelles ditions Africaines.
Ouncker, Sheila (1960) The Free Coloured and Their Fight for Civil Rights in
Jamaica 1800- 1836, Unpublished MA Thesis, University of London.
Ouring, Simon (1985) 'Postmodernism or Postcolonialism?', Landfa/139(3):
366-80.
Ouring, Simon (1987) 'Postmodernism or Post-coloni alism Today', Textual
Practice 1 ( 1 ): 32- 47.
Eagleton, Terry (1975) Myths of Power: A Marxist Study of the 8rontes,
London: Macmi llan.
Edwards, Philip (1979) Threshold of a Nation, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Egejuru, Phanuel Akubueze (1980) Towards African Literary lndependence: A
Dialogue With Contemporary African Writers, Westport, Conn. : Greenwood.
Elk, Black/Neilhardt, John G. (1972) 8/ack Elk Speaks: 8eing the Life Story of
a Ho/y Man of the Ogla/a Sioux As Told Through John G. Neilhardt
(F/aming Rainbow), London: Barrie & Jenkins.
Emecheta, Buchi (1976) The 8ride Price, New York: G. Braziller.
Escobar, Arturo (1984- 5} 'Discourse and Power in Development: Michel
Foucault and the Rel evance of his Work to the Third World' , Alternatves
10(3) (Winter): 377- 400.
Eyre, Edward John (1845) Journals of Expeditions of Discovery into Central
Australia and Overland from Adelaide to King George's Sound, 1840- 1, 2
vols, London: T. W. Boon.
Fanon, Frantz (1952) 'The Fact of Blackness' in 8 /ack Skin, White Masks
(Peau noire, masques blancs, Pars: Seuil), trans. Charles Lam Markmann
(1968), London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Fanon, Frantz (1961) The Wretched of the Earth (Les damns de la terre),
trans. Constance Farrington (1965), London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Fanon, Frantz (1967) The Wretched ofthe Earth, trans. Constance Farri ngton,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fanon, Frantz (1968) The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington
(1963), New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, Frantz (1970a) 'Aigeria Unveiled' in A Dying Colonialism (L'an cinq de
la rvolution A/grienne), originally trans. as A Study in Dying Colonialism
by Franyois Maspro (1965}, New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, Frantz (1970b) Toward the African Revolution, trans. Haakon
Chevalier, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Fa non, Frantz ( 1991) The Wretched of the Earth, Preface by Jean-Paul Sartre,
trans. Constance Farrington (1963), 1st Evergreen Edn, New York: Grove
Press.
Farah, Nuruddin (1970) From a Crooked Rib, London: Hei nemann.
Farish, J. (1838} Minute dated August 28th 1838, Political Dept, Vol. 20n95,
1837-9 (Bombay Records); quoted in B. K. Boman-Behram (1942),
Educational Controversias of India: The Cultural Conquest of India under
8ritish lmperialism, Bombay: Taraporevala Sons.
Fee, Margery (1989) 'Why C. K. Stead Didn't Like Keri Hulme's the bone
497
BIBLIOGRAPHY
people: Who can write as Othe ?' A
Ganada 1: 11-32. r. , ustral!an and New Zealand Studies in
(1986) See Prince, Mary (1986).
(1971) The Collected Essays of Leslie Fiedler, New York: Stein