Saturday, April 19, 2008

Problems with Post-colonialism


What's wrong with the term post-colonial lit?

For some post-colonial critics, using the term "post-colonial" to describe anything leads a writer or critic into murky waters. What authors can be included in the post-colonial canon? Is looking at literature through a post-colonial lens Eurocentric, for it limits the significance of a nation to the time it was colonized?

In a paper posted on the Washington State University website, Paul Brians addresses the controversy surrounding the use of the term "post-colonial," arguing that "more it is examined, the more the postcolonial sphere crumbles. Though Jamaican, Nigerian, and Indian writers have much to say to each other; it is not clear that they should be lumped together." Brians does, however, admit that until a better term comes along, it's difficult to avoid the "post-colonial" tag when discussing literature that deals with the culture identity of formerly colonized nations.

All of this leads me to wonder - is post-colonialism a legitimate form of literary criticism? Certainly, the literary community must have the discussions that arise from questions post-colonial critics put forth. In the same way that Marxists for Feminists seek to examine texts through the minority perspectives, so too do the post-colonial critics.

While post-colonialism is undoubtedly a more controversial form of criticism than, say, Formalism, I tend to agree with Brians that until we can find better a better term or definition, we must continue to utilize the term "post-colonial criticism" in our studies, however reluctant we may in embracing that term. Objections can be raised to any form of literary criticism, and simply because post-colonial criticism might raise more questions is no reason to ignore the field altogether. We may be uncomfortable with the direction that post-colonialism takes us, but it doesn't make the journey any less vital to our own literary understanding.

No comments: