Cynical Theories Ch 3 Postcolonial Theory: Deconstructing the West to Save the Other

 Although today most people would agree that colonialism was bad, it dominated global politics for five centuries, from about the fifteenth until the middle of the twentieth. At the time there were undoubtedly some enlightened people who frowned upon it, but it was largely accepted. The French used the phrase, 'la mission civilisatrice' (the civilizing mission) and in North America they used the phrase, 'manifest destiny'. Following WWII especially, these ideologies quickly lost favor and decolonization proceeded quickly, so that by the early 1960s, academia and the general public agreed on the immorality of colonialism. This also happens to be the time that postmodernism was coming into vouge, so postcolonialism is best seen as a narrowing of the focus of postmodernism to deal specifically with the problems of colonialism. For postcolonialism, it is not enough that we simply all agree that colonialism was bad, nor is it enough to try to address the political and economical fallout of colonialism on colonized populations. We must dismantle the cultural frameworks that allowed colonialism to flourish in the first place. For example, the idea of "othering," ie 'we are rational and they are superstitious, we are honest and they're deceptive. We are civilized, they are barbaric.' This :Orientalism" is an obviously terrible outlook, but one to keep in mind, as we will return to this later in this chpater. 

At this point a brief introduction is given to some of the main players in postcolonialism, starting with  Frantz Fanon. Writing in 1961, Fanon was considered to more of a modernist, because while he was very skeptical and critical, he relied heavily on Marxists hatred of capitalism and psychoanalytic theory, and is essentially a humanist. Nevertheless he inspired many later thinkers, including Edward Said, considered to be the father of postcolonialism. Said introduces the concept of rewriting history from the point of view of the oppressed. It is not contested that history is written by the victors, which Spivak, another prominent postcolonialist, calls "epistemic violence". Rewriting history to include the point of view of the oppressed is good, in so far as it is factual and accurate. However, Said's version of rewriting is used to "rewrite history in accordance with local or political narratives or to simultaneously elevate multiple irreconcilable histories and thereby implicitly reject any claim to objective knowledge." 

Another postcolonialist introduced is Homi K. Bhabha, who focuses mainly on the role language plays in the construction of knowledge. "As befits one who is radically skeptical of the ability of language to convey meaning at all, Bhabha's writing is notoriously difficult to read." And the authors aren't kidding. See if you can decipher this Bhabha passage:

"If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the use of discipline, soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to "normalize" formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claim of its enunciatory modality." 

Talk about a run on sentence. I challenge anyone to produce a more convoluted way to say that colonizers use sexist and racist jokes first to control a subordinate group and then to convince themselves that the stereotypes are true. 

After introducing some of the pioneers of postcolonialism, the authors compare three relevant mindsets, in order to highlight one problem with postcolonial Theory. First, the "Western" or colonial mindset is the one upon which colonialism flourished, Orientalism, Manifest Destiny, etc. Westerners must spread their scientific and rational version of civilization to more ignorant peoples.  Second, a liberal mindset says that all humans are capable of reason and scientific discovery. All are capable of discovering truth and therefore all need freedom and opportunities. Third, the postmodern mindset says that "the West has constructed the idea that rationality and science are good in order to perpetuate its own power and marginalize nonrational, nonscientific forms of knowledge production from elsewhere." In other words, postcolonialism ironically embraces Orientalism; it says the problem with colonialism wasn't the binary that the west is scientific and the other is superstitious, the problem is that we should value superstition as much as we value science. Their way of knowing should be just as valuable as our way of knowing. An applied or critical postmodern (postcolonial) mindset takes it one step further: "The West has constructed the idea that rationality and science are good in order to perpetuate its own power and marginalize nonrational, nonscientific forms of knowledge production from elsewhere. Therefore, we must now devalue white, Western  ways of knowing for belonging to white Westerners and promote Eastern ones (in order to equalize the power imbalance)." This is referred to as 'decolonizing' or seeking 'research justice'. 

Not long ago I saw a video of students proudly "decolonizing" their school library by throwing books by white authors into the dumpster. It isn't enough to buy more books by marginalized populations, nor certainly to judge books on their contents rather than the ethnicity of their authors, we must now actively fight against white Western authors. This is also the impetus for removing statues. It no longer matters what positive contributions a person may have made, nor where their actions fit within the moral framework of their day; if they participated in colonialism in any way, they need to be demonized and erased. 

A particularly alarming application is the aforementioned "research justice". Basically this means that, for far too long, academia has been built on the Western ideal of objectivity and falsifiable evidence. In order to decolonize academia, we need to emphasize other ways of knowing. "That such an approach doesn't tend to work is considered unimportant because it is deemed to be more just. That is, this belief proceeds from an ought that is not necessarily concerned about what is." Rationality itself becomes the enemy, and the authors give an example of postcolonialists trying to cancel philosophy in universities all together because it's  "bastion of Eurocentrism, whiteness in general, and white heteronormative male structural privilege and superiority in particular." Can't study Plato and Aristotle anymore because they were straight white dudes and therefore their philosophy is racist. Or something. 

Research justice is how we get to the point where 2+2=5 is a legitimate answer because math, an objectively correct answer, is racist and devalues other ways of knowing. If a marginalized person says 2+2=5, then we have no way to challenge them because all knowledge is subjective and we lack insight into their lived experience. 

I will spare you the Bhabha quote from a book called Decolonizing Research in Cross-Cultural Contexts  and instead just quote the authors' translation: "This means that the authors of the essays within this volume are not obliged to make sense, produce reasoned arguments, avoid logical contradiction, or provide any evidence for their claims. The normal expectations of scholarly 'research' do not apply when pursuing research justice." 

Rather than solving the problem of  Orientalism or "othering" of different cultures, postcolonialism perpetuates that problem. Meera Nanda is here introduced as a postcolonial scholar who recognizes and opposes this hypocrisy. Truly elevating people who have been oppressed and experienced the fallout of colonialism within their cultures involves recognizing them as every bit as capable of reason and logic, of scientific advancement, and of scholarly success as one from any dominant culture. They are dealing with real political and economic problems as a result of colonialism, and we cannot address those real problems while buy problematizing science and reason itself.