Simon During

Postmodernism or Post-colonialism Today

WE CAN, RATHER brutally, characterize postmodern thought (the phrase is useful rather
than happy as that thought !hich refuses to turn the "ther into the #ame$ Thus it pro%ides a
theoretical space for !hat postmodernity denies& otherness$ 'ostmodern thought also recognizes,
ho!e%er, that the "ther can ne%er spea( for itself as the "ther$ "ne should hesitate to call n
discourse !hich re%ol%es around these positions either for or against post)modernity, but it is
certainly not simply consonant !ith it$
These propositions, none of !hich is either original or uncontentious, and all of !hich !ill be
fleshed out belo!, allo! me to mount my central thesis$ This is that the concept postmodernity has
been constructed in terms !hich more or less intentionally !ipe out the possibility of post)colonial
identity$ *ndeed, intention aside, the conceptual annihilation of the post)colonial condition is
actually necessary to any argument !hich attempts to sho! that +!e+ no! li%e in postmodernity$ ,or
me, perhaps eccentrically, post)colonialism is regarded as the need, in nations or groups !hich ha%e
been %ictims of imperialism, to achie%e an identity uncontaminated by uni%ersalist or Eurocentric
concepts and images$ Here the argument becomes comple-, since post)colonialism constitutes one
of those "thers !hich might deri%e hope and legitimation from the first aspect of post modern
thought, its refusal to turn the "ther into the #ame$ As such it is threatened by the second moment
in postmodern thought$ $ $ $
The post)colonial desire is the desire of decolonized communities for an identity$ $ $ $
"b%iously it is closely connected to nationalism, for those communities are often, though not
al!ays, nations$ *n both literature and politics the post)colonial dri%e to!ards identity centres
around language, partly because in postmodernity identity is barely a%ailable else!here$ *+m the
post)colonial to spea( or !rite in the imperial tongues is to call forth a problem of identity, to be
thro!n into mimicry and ambi%alence$ The .uestion of language for post)colonialism is political,
cultural and literary,
/0123
not in the transcendental sense that the phrase an differend enables politics, but in the material
sense that a choice of language is a choice of identity$
The lin( bet!een post)colonialism and language has a history$ *n his recent boo(, Imagined
Communities, 4enedict Anderson has argued that nationalism has al!ays been grounded in 4abel$
That is to say, nationalism is a product of !hat he calls +print)capitalism+$ He !rites& +the
con%ergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal di%ersity of human languages created
the possibility of a ne! form of imagined community !hich in its basic morphology set the stage
for the modern nation+ (Anderson 0567& 85$ "ne does not ha%e to accept the faculty psychology
hidden in the phrase +imagined community+ to ta(e the point$ Nationalism emerges !hen some
languages get into print and are transmitted through boo(s, allo!ing sub9ects to identify themsel%es
as members of the community of readers implied by these boo(s$
:et us ta(e Anderson+s history further$ "f all the !or(s that created the ne! print languages,
none had more authority than the sacred boo(s$ A !hiff of heresy attaches itself to the story at this
point$ The sacred boo(s, as %ehicles of ;od+s !ord, cannot be translated$ No doubt, !hen ;od
re%eals himself in natural language, transposition of a (ind has already ta(en place, but the human
language becomes di%ine through the breath of ;od+s %oice, the trace of his hand$ To deli%er the
4ible (or the <oran to any demotic language is not 9ust to allo! nationalism to o%erpo!er the old
church, but for meaning to precede form, for communication to precede re%elation ) it is to admit, in
fact, the arbitrariness of the sign$
Anderson does not ma(e a further argument !hich seems to me inescapable$ "nce the sign
becomes arbitrary, once di%ine self)re%elation becomes transferable across secular languages, then
not only may national identities attach to the print language, but language itself no longer permits of
any proper identity$ *f one language can be translated into another, if there is no such thing as a
dead language, !hat untranslatable residue remains to be the property solely of those !ho spea( it=
its form, !hich cannot be communicated in ) as one says ) any other form> ?et an identity granted
in terms of the signifier (!hich * use, as it is often used, as a figure for form as such is an identity
that necessarily cannot be communicated$ *t !ould seem to be !ritten into the fate of nationalism as
print)capitalism that national identity is conferred in the form of its o!n death !arrant$ *ndeed,
there are moments in our culture !here an un.uenchable nationalist pathos confronts its o!n
mortality& one thin(s of Holderlin+s poetry$
The appeal to !hat is une-changeable in language is especially tempting under capitalism,
!hich deals !ith things and !ords for their e-change %alue$ *n the classic formulations of
nationalism ) ,ichte+s Addresses to the ;erman Nation, for instance ) national identity is based on
both language (the home of culture and soil$ When a post)colonial nationalist li(e the <enyan
no%elist Ngugi, li%ing under multinational
/01@3
capitalism, loo(s at the soil, he sees it as a means of production, and means production do not
articulate identities= indeed, !here they can be o!ned, they are often o!ned by foreigners$ This
lea%es him language and, !ithin language, culture$ ("ne might note that for decolonized nations the
other great ground for nationalist pathos ) !ar ) has little place$ Aost post)colonial nations and
tribes ha%e a history of defeat by imperialist po!ers$ ,reedom is often the enemy+s gift$
're)colonial language shelters all the particularity elided o%er by colonial stereotyping, by
modernist %alorization of the primiti%e and by anthropology$ *n return, as identical to itself, national
language e-cludes the !eb of contacts, the play of sameness and difference !hich !ea%e one
society into another$ *t does so in ha%ing the ad%antage that it is not uni.ue$ The number of
languages a%ailable to be spo(en is infinite= the economy of 4abel is not restricted$ And yet
language is not identical to itself, and in translation a residue is al!ays left behind$
Ngugi, !ho places language at the heart of his post)colonialism, !ar arrested for co)!riting
plays in ;i(uyu, although no doubt his crime !as also to aid ;i(uyu+s transformation into a print
language$ *t is clear that he is not troubled by the sense that an identity gi%en in print language is
gi%en as a death !arrant$ Thus, !hen he, or someone li(e him, enters a no%el by a post)colonial
!riter !ho is disturbed by such .uestions, the mode of encounter is predictable$ Near the beginning
of #alman RushdieBs no%el Shame, the narrator is interrupted by such a spea(er, disputing his
authority to tell the tale$
Outsider! Trespasser! You have no right to this subject'. $$$ * (no!= nobody e%er
arrested me$ Nor are they e%er li(ely to$ oacher! irate! We reject your authority. !e
"no# you, #ith your foreign $anguage' #rapped around you $i"e a f$ag% spea"ing about us
in your for"ed tongue, #hat can you te$$ but $ies& * reply !ith more .uestions& *s history to
be considered the property of the participants solely> *n !hat courts are such claims sta(ed,
!hat boundary commissions map out the territories> Can only the dead spea(>+
(Rushdie 0568& 17
This is a dialogue across the bar !hich internally di%ides the post)colonial$ The di%ide
separates !hat one can call the post)colonized from the post)colonizers$ The post)colonized identify
!ith the culture destroyed by imperialism and its tongue= the post)colonizers, if they do not identify
!ith imperialism, at least cannot 9ettison the culture and tongues of the imperialist nations$ "f
course there is not al!ays a choice here$ ,or many e-)colonies the nati%e tongue is the !orld tongue
) English$ This is not 9ust true for Australia and Canada, say, as it !as once for the Cnited #lates$ *t
is also true for West *ndians as !ell as for many Aaoris and Aboriginals$ *ndeed, there e-ists a
largely unrecognized but crucial difference in the %arious post)colonial nations$ A country li(e
Australia has almost no possibility of entry into the post colonized condition, though its neighbor,
/01D3
Ne! Eealand, !here Aaoris constitute a large minority, does$ Ne! Eealand retains a
language, a store of proper names, memories of a pre)colonial culture, !hich seducti%ely figure
identity$ * ha%e no doubt that the %ery name Ne! Eealand, and its differend, !ill pass one day, the
nation coming to call itself Aotearoa$ What one encounters here is a politics of language !hich rests
not on the po!er !ithin language, the po!er of rhetoric, but on the po!er behind language$ ,rom
the side of the post)colonizer, a return to difference is pro9ected$ 4ut, from the side of post)
modernity, English (multinational capitalism+s tongue !ill museumify those pre)colonial languages
!hich ha%e attached themsel%es to print and the image so belatedly$
Rushdie+s dialogue bet!een the post)colonized and the post)colonizer ta(es place in a
language !hich is not .uite transatlantic English$ ,or instance, the position of the ad%erb in the
phrase +*s history to be considered the property of the participants solely>+ mar(s a tone at the
slightest of remo%es from that English$ 4ut its difference may not be in%ested !ith nationalist
pathos$ *t remains too close to !hat is not different but the norm, the language of !orld po!er$ The
sense that *ndian, Ne! Eealand, Australian or *rish English is not as different from transatlantic
English as ,rench is from English, let alone as different as Aaori or ;i(uyu, figures the post)
colonizer+s emptiness$ +Can only the dead spea(>+ Rushdie elliptically as(s, hinting, among other
things, at the po!erlessness of the pre)colonial tongues and at the death !arrant in%ol%ed in finding
an identity through fallen languages, of !hich his o!n has fallen furthest$
Rushdie ans!ers the post)colonized challenge in terms of the differend. The narrator en.uires&
+*n !hat courts are such claims sta(ed>+ No! it is he, !hose side is not .uite that of the oppressed,
!ho appears as %ictim$ He cannot find a place for 9ustice, nor plainly articulate his case, partly
because he spea(s neither the language of the international mar(et nor a post)colonized language$
What he is charged !ith is !hat he inherited$ *f Rushdie, as a post)colonizer, spea(s from a place in
contemporary history !here a differend is dramatically foregrounded, then :yotard+s retreat into
transcendental philosophy, his mysticism of selected proper names, his preference for e-periment,
ha%e a strong competitor$ *f Fameson cannot fully distance himself from the sublimity and
internationalism of !hat !e can call image)capitalism, then that is perhaps because he has not
listened carefully enough to those %oices !hich tal( of the differend on its borders$
To consider the 'poca$ypse (o# system alongside Shame is chastening$ The problem is not
one of %arieties of postmodernism$ Rushdie+s !or( is sometimes called postmodern, but it certainly
does not reflect post)inodcrnity$ Shame) purpose is to reconnect shame ) that epic, indeed pre)
capitalist, emotion the ;ree(s called aides * to the recent history of 'a(istan$ *n redirecting shame,
the no%el calls upon a %iolence, both feminine and monstrous, !hich does not, li(e that of
'poca$ypse (o#,
/0163
reach a clima- from the %ery beginning$ Shame imagines an unlocalizable, ine-pressi%e,
ethically proper %iolence !e ne%er see in 'poca$ypse (o#. *ndeed, the no%el as a !hole !or(s in
precisely the opposite direction to Coppola+s mo%ie$ History is not derealized, affect is not atomized
into intensity, narrati%e triumphs, other cultures are not confined !ithin "ccidental myth, nor
outside the Western screen$ #o !e can say that, !hen confronted by his post)colonized accuser,
Rushdie is startled into an articulation of the problematic of the differend, but, !hen faced !ith
modern 'a(istan, he acts as accuser in turn$ Here his no%el remains connected to those concepts of
9ustice and reason that totalizing denouncers of our post)modernity assure us are in their
safe(eeping$