Whence and Whither Postcolonial Theory?

Robert Stam, Ella Shohat

New Literary History, Volume 43, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 371-390 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/nlh.2012.0010

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/nlh/summary/v043/43.2.stam.html

Access provided by University of Wisconsin @ Madison (24 Dec 2013 12:55 GMT)

Whence and Whither Postcolonial Theory?

Robert Stam and Ella Shohat

n the following, we dialogue with the Robert Young and Dipesh Chakrabarty essays, while also grafting them onto our own concerns.* We will address two broad issues broached by both essays, that is, the whencewhere does postcolonial theory come from?and the whitherwhere is it going? Throughout, we argue for a decentered, multidirectional narrative for the circulation of ideas in order to better chart the past itineraries and future possibilities of the postcolonial. Robert Young deftly refutes the postcolonial-theory-has-lost-its-groove argument by shifting focus from its prematurely celebrated demise to an anatomy of the desire for its death. In the face of this unseemly dance macabre around a putative corpse, Young points to the Lazarus-like resurrection of the cadaver. As long as colonialism remains in the form of vestigial practices and habits of thought rooted in colonial power structures, Young argues, postcolonial critique will contest that legacy: not as an orthodox catechism of answers, but rather as an ever-shifting constellation of questions. Youngs own essay demonstrates postcolonial theorys jiujitsu-like capacity to transform critique into renewal. From the early internal interrogations by Anne McClintock and Ella Shohat to the later external criticisms of Aijaz Ahmad or Arif Dirlik, the criticisms have triggered both rebuttals and course corrections. To name just a few of the critiques, they include censure for: (1) the elision of class (sometimes linked ad hominem to the elite status of the theorists themselves); (2) a tendency to subjectivize political struggles by reducing them to intrapsychic tensions, a critique addressed to Bhabhas poststructuralist recasting of Fanon; (3) an avoidance, noted by Marxists, of political economy in a globalized age where neoliberal economics drives many of the cultural shifts registered by the theory; (4) an obsessive antibinarism that ignores the intractable binarism of colonialism itself (a critique made by phenomenologically oriented Fanonians); (5) a haughty superciliousness (noted by Ann du Cille) toward elds such as ethnic studies, which shared many axioms with postcolonial critique and helped open up institutional space for postcolonial studies, yet which were dismissed as essentialist; (6) a tendency to focus on faded European empires while ignoring the
New Literary History, 2012, 43: 371390

372

new literary history

actually existing U.S. neoimperialism that surged into the vacuum left by the receding empires; (7) a Commonwealth-centrism which, while valid in its own terms, sometimes quietly assumes the British-Indian relation as paradigmatic, while neglecting vast regions such as Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and the indigenous fourth world (including that within India itself); (8) a lack of historical precision (noted by historians such as Frederick Cooper), linked to a vertiginous rhetoric of slippage that allowed little concrete sense of time or place except when the theoretical helicopter landed on a random historical example; (9) the inordinate privileging of themes of hybridity, diaspora, and elite cosmopolitanism, to the detriment of refugees and displaced persons and the racialized division of international labor; and (10) a failure to articulate postcolonial theory in relation to ecology and climate change. Some of these criticisms are patently unfair when applied to a multifaceted intellectual formation, some apply only to particular versions of postcolonial theory, and some betray a hostility to theory per se. In terms of alleged lacunae, Young and Chakrabarty foreground some of the very issues presumed elided. Young evokes the human remains of colonialism embodied in an invisible tricontinental diaspora, while Chakrabarty addresses ecology, climate change, and some horric indices of social oppressiona billion people without proper drinking water, European detention centers for illegal immigrants, and so forth. The outside Marxist critique of postcolonial theory, meanwhile, forgets that Marxism is also inside postcolonial theory, in Youngs work (for example, Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction) and in the work of Gayatri Spivak and the subaltern studies group generally, to take only two obvious examples. Many of the criticisms are premised on the chimerical demand that every writer-scholar address all the issues within one fell textual swoop. In any case, the criticisms themselves arguably form part of the postcolonial eld as the site of what Young calls the necessary mode of perpetual autocritique (22).

The Whence: Postcolonial Genealogies

Where did postcolonial theory come from? When did it begin? In the long view, postcolonial theory must be seen as part of a long anticolonial dure. Here we welcome Youngs salute to the primordial importance of Iberia and the Convivencia. In our view, the various questionsthe Jewish, Muslim, Indian, Black, and African questionshave been interwoven for centuries. Their linked trajectories can be traced, as we argued in Unthinking Eurocentrism, back to the events associated with

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

373

the cataclysmic moment summoned up by the various 1492sthat is, the conquest of the new world, the expulsion of the Moors, and the Inquisition. Although one can argue about the depth of the Convivencia, clearly Muslims and Jews lived in a densely textured cultural intimacy.1 A swelling corpus has documented the long history of cultural continuity and political alliance between Muslim and Jew.2 Key philosophical, literary, grammatical, and medical texts within Judaism were written in Arabic and in dialogue with Islamic writings, while Sephardi synagogues were built in the Moorish style. The Star of David hexagram adorned the faades of the Testour mosque in Tunisia, as well as Moroccan coins and the Moroccan ag.3 Al-Andalus has become a trope for past and contemporary utopias and dystopias. If Al-Andalus provided the model for a tolerant multiculturalism avant la lettre, the victorious Spain of the Reconquista provided a template for ethno-religious cleansing and the creation of racial states. The ground for colonialist racism was prepared by the limpieza de sangre, by the expulsion edicts against Jews and Muslims, by the Portuguese expansion into West Africa, and by the transatlantic slave trade. Christian demonology about Muslims and Jews thus set the tone for racialized colonialism, equipping the conquistadores with a ready-made conceptual apparatus to be extended to the Americas. Vespuccis travel accounts drew on the stock of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim imagery to characterize the indigenous peoples as indels and devil worshipers.4 The conquest of the Indians in the West, for Spanish historian Francisco Lpez de Gmara, prolonged the struggle against the Muslim indels in the East.5 Within the transoceanic circulation of tropes, the frightening gure of the cannibal, rst elaborated in relation to the Caribs and Tupi, was transferred to Africans. A partial congruency ties the phantasmatic imagery projected onto both the internal non-Christian enemy and the external indigenous American and African savage, all subjected to a blood libel that portrayed them as blood drinkers and cannibals. We nd Youngs engagement with these issues heartening because we have long argued that any in-depth study of coloniality/postcoloniality must go at least as far back as the Reconquista.6 The events summed up in the date 1492 suggest that the history of nineteenth-century European imperial discourses, including Saids highlighting of post-Enlightenment Orientalism, could be narrated differently, in terms of the twinned beginnings of both colonial and Orientalist discourse. Columbus, in this sense, was the ur-Orientalist, not simply in literally fantasizing his arrival in the Oriental land of the great Khan, but also in globalizing Iberian Orientalist discourses by linking the indias occidentales and the indias orientales.

374

new literary history

The various discursive positions for and against conquest, slavery, racism, and imperialism, meanwhile, have been available for a long time; contemporary debates are reformatted versions of those earlier debates. The contending positions were present in germ in debates about conquest and transatlantic slavery dating back ve hundred years. These debates were argued in a religious/political idiom in the sixteenth century, when Seplveda and de las Casas debated whether Indians had souls and therefore enjoyed derechos humanos. Colonialism itself has always generated its own critiques, whether by the dominant cultures own renegades and dissidents or by the indigenous and African colonized who fought conquest and enslavement. When Diderot in the eighteenth century called for African insurrection against European colonialists, he can be seen as an anticolonialist avant la lettre. Present-day debates are at times quite literally embedded in earlier quarrels. Debates about indigenous land rights in the Americas go back to the Conquest and to Enlightenment theories about property (John Locke). Debates about multicultural identity politics go back to the various Republican revolutions carried out by propertied white men. In France, both right and left invoke Enlightenment values to articulate their views of identity politics, whether seen as a praiseworthy expansion of Jacobin equality or as a particularist departure from revolutionary universality. In the United States, both liberals and conservatives invoke, in opposite ways, the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence; Obama appeals to the more perfect union of the Preamble, while Tea Party Republicans interpret the Constitution as endorsing Christianity and right-wing libertarianism. When David Cameron asserts that multiculturalism has failed, he does so in the name of a return to robust liberalism and Western values. Past and present reverberate together; old debates anticipate and haunt the present, lending new names to old quarrels, now rearticulated within altered idioms and paradigms. We are also heartened by Youngs foregrounding of indigeneity, a subject that has engaged us for over two decades, as we have tried to link postcolonial concerns with Native American/indigenous critique.7 Postcolonial theory, as Young points out, has generally given scant attention to the indigenous question. It is not simply a matter of adding the indigene to the roll call of the oppressed; it is also a matter of unpacking the doxa that led to the marginalizing of indigeneity. Youngs point that the indigenous issue troubles certain assumptions of postcolonial discourse calls for amplication. What postcolonial topoi are thrown in doubt by indigenous critique? First, indigenous thinkers often see their situation as colonial rather than postcolonial, or as at once colonial, postcolonial, and paracolonial. Second, while postcolonial theory celebrates a cosmopolitan travelling theory, indigenous discourse often

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

375

valorizes a rooted rather than a cosmopolitan existence. Third, while postcolonial theory revels in blurring borders, indigenous communities seek to afrm borders by demarcating land against encroaching squatters, nation-states, and corporations. Fourth, while Derridean-inspired postcolonial theory contests myths of origin, indigenous communities try to reconstruct their original languages and their original myths for the sake of their own survival. Fifth. While postcolonialism highlights the inventedness of nations and denaturalizes the natural, while enclosing nature within protective scare quotes. Indigenous thinkers insist of love of a land regarded as sacred. In ecological terms, indigenous multinaturalism (Eduardo Viveires de Castro) challenges both the rhetorical antinaturalism of the posts but also the primordial othering that separated nature from culture, and animals from human beings, a topic alluded to in Chakrabartys essay.8 The postcolonial privileging of hybridity is especially fraught for indigenous peoples. On the one hand, indigenous nations have been hybrid for millennia. Native nations were trading and borrowing with one another long before Columbus, a process only accelerated and complicated by the Conquest. Nor were indigenous peoples primitive and adverse to technology. Setting aside the monumental achievements of the Aztec, the Maya, and the Inca civilizations, the indigenous appropriation of European technique began as early as 1503, shortly after Europeans arrival, when the Captain Paulmier de Gonneville brought the young Carij Indian Essomerica from Brazil to France to study munitions technology to help his nation in its struggles.9 Essomericq in this sense anticipated by ve centuries the 1920s Brazilian modernists exaltation of the high-tech Indian (the indio tecnizado), a coinage which presciently foreshadowed present-day Amazonian Kayapo and Xavante lmmakers wielding computers and digital cameras and posting videos on YouTube. On the other hand, hybridity has often served to disempower indigenous peoples of mixed heritage, dismissed as not real Indians deserving of rights. To think deeply about indigeneity is also necessarily to think in ways that transcend the nation-state: rst, because many indigenous communities came into existence before the emergence of modern nationstates; second, because the national identity of colonial-settler states in the Americas was constituted in relation to the Indian, whether as the enemy to be massacred and displaced, or as the recuperated symbol of national difference from Europe; third, because the dispossession of indigenous communities was partially the product of expansionism by nation-states; fourth, because many native communities have actively rejected the very concept of the nation-state, not because they could not achieve it, but because they did not want it; fth, because the present-day

376

new literary history

boundaries of many indigenous communities actually exceed the borders of nation-states (for example, the Yanomami in Brazil and Venezuela); and sixth, because many indigenous peoples, due to multiple dislocations, no longer live only on their original land base but are dispersed regionally and transnationally. The Quechua, for example, not only inhabit Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia; they are also dispersed into North America and Europe. The Western response to the indigenous civilizations of the Americas reveals a general pattern of vanishing indigenous cultural and intellectual agency. The Indians, as the direct and indirect producers of resistant knowledge, were central to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, periods when European culture, in Bakhtins words, lost its sealed-off and self-sufcient character, becoming conscious of itself as only one among other cultures.10 Questions about the status and social systems of the misnamed Indian were disputed by Spanish jurists (Seplveda, Francisco de Vitoria), French humanists (Montaigne), British economists (Smith) and empiricists (Locke), American statesmen (Jefferson, Franklin), German philosophers (Hegel), and Brazilian writers (from Pro Vaz de Caminha to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro), as well as by indigenous thinkers themselves. The gure of the Indian got caught up in controversies about religion, property, sovereignty, and culture. Indeed, no in-depth analysis of modernity can bypass the indigenous peoples of the Americas, whether negatively, as the victims of progress, or positively, as the catalysts for Western thinking and artistic production, discernible in the work of Thomas More, Jean de Lry, Shakespeare, Hobbes, Rousseau, Voltaire, Chateaubriand, Melville, Marx and Engels, Oswald de Andrade, Gilberto Freyre, Claude Lvi-Strauss, Pierre Clastres, and countless others. In Race in Translation: Cultures Wars around the Postcolonial Atlantic, we speak of the Red Atlantic. While Black Atlantic evokes the Middle Passage and the diasporization of Africans, Red Atlantic registers the dispossession of indigenous peoples by Europeans. The settler colonialism that dispossessed the Red and the racial slavery that exploited the Black were the twin machines of racial supremacy. At the same time, European and Euro-American thinkers deployed the Indian as inspiration for social critique and utopian desire. The emergence into European consciousness of the indigene triggered an epistemological excitement that generated both the dystopian imagery of Hobbess nasty and brutish savage and the utopian imagery of an egalitarian social system. Montaigne was provoked into writing Des Cannibales by his meeting with three Brazilian Tupinamb in 1562, at the court of King Charles IX, where the Tupinamb asked provocative questions about French society. They wondered, for example, why some people ate well

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

377

and others ate barely at all and why the starving did not strangle the well-fed. With a few irreverent queries, the Tupinamb demolished the prestige of the hereditary monarchy and the class system. In a sense, they were theorizing prerevolutionary France as much as Montaigne was theorizing pre- and post-Conquest America. The idea that the image of the free Indian lifestyle helped spread revolutionary ideas in Europe and North America was not a fantasy only of French philosophers. In 1937, the conservative Brazilian jurist/ historian Afonso Arinos de Melo Franco argued in The Brazilian Indian and the French Revolution that the theory of natural goodness, developed by the European Enlightenment but inspired by what he saw as false ideas about the Brazilian Indian, helped foment the French Revolution.11 The Franco-Brazilian-indigenous dialogue has been ongoing for ve hundred years, leaving traces even in what is loosely dened as French Theory. Lvi-Strausss work in Brazil in the 1930s, which generated such concepts as la pense sauvage and bricolage, was very much inspired by Jean de Lerys sympathetic protoethnographic account of life among the Tupinamb. The Franco-Indigenous philosophical dialogue has been prolonged by Certeaus writings about Jean de Lry, by Rene Girards use of Tupinamb cannibalism as the key to the scapegoat rituals informing all religions, and by Gilles Deleuze, who wrote in What is Philosophy? that the philospher becomes Indian, and never stops becoming soperhaps so that the Indian who is himself Indian becomes something else and tears himself away from his own agony.12 The motif of the Indian as exemplar of liberty also pervaded the discursive atmosphere of the American Revolution and of Brazilian anticolonial nationalism. The American Founding Fathers were avid readers of the philo-indigenous French philosophes, but they also read, as it were, the Native Americans themselves. While entirely capable of exoticism and even exterminationism, the Founding Fathers had a more direct experience of Native Americans than did the French philosophers. They had diplomatic exchanges with them, traded with them, learned their languages, and were inuenced by their political thought, even ifa crucial pointthey ultimately massacred and dispossessed them. Like pro-independence nationalists in Brazil, American revolutionaries brandished the Indian as an icon of national difference vis--vis Europe, whence the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) symbolism of the eagles quiver of arrows (representing the thirteen states) on the dollar bill and the Indian statue gracing the Capitol building.13 A recurrent leitmotif in the writings of the Enlightenment philosophers and the Founding Fathers was the idea that Indian societies never submitted themselves to any laws or coercive power. Marx and Engels later picked up on this theme in their readings of Lewis Henry Morgans

378

new literary history

Ancient Society, in which Morgan lauded the profoundly democratic organization of the Iroquois League. For Marx and Engels, the Iroquois meshed a communal economic system with a democratic political organization, thus offering a model of economic equality achieved without state domination, in a society devoid of nobles, kings, soldiers, and police and where all, including the women, were free and equal. Although the Marxist term primitive communism evokes a long-vanished communitas, this utopia was an actually existing society located between Canada and the United States. The Brazilian modernists of the 1920s picked up on the cues offered by Montaigne and Marx. The European-indigene encounter, for Oswald de Andrade, deeply shaped the movement of ideas: To know that on the other side of the world had been glimpsed a kind of human being, knowing neither sin nor redemption, theology nor inferno, produced not only utopian dreams . . . but also a general shock in the consciousness and culture of Europe.14 In his 1928 Anthropophagic Manifesto, de Andrade sketched out this utopian lineage as follows: Filiation. The contact with Caraiba Brazil. . . . The Natural Man. Rousseau. From the French revolution to Romanticism, to the Bolshevik revolution, to the Surrealist revolution, to the technicized barbarian of Keyserling.15 In his essay, Chakrabarty offers an origin story for anticolonial critique that excludes indigeneity: The nineteenth century left us with some internationalist and universalist ideologies, prominent among them Marxism and liberalism, both progenies in different ways of the Enlightenment. Anti-colonial thought was born of that lineage (1). In short, the Enlightenment begat universalist Marxism and liberalism, which then begat anticolonialism. The author of Provincializing Europe summarizes intellectual history, surprisingly, in a Euro-diffusionist manner that assigns virtually all intellectual agency to the West. We are not suggesting that anticolonial critique learned nothing from the West, but only that the movement of ideas was multidirectional. Anticolonialist thought did not simply absorb European ideas; it changed those ideas, and those changes impacted Europe. Thus Fanon adopts, and transforms, Sartrean phenomenology, Lacanian psychoanalysis, and Western Marxism. In White Mythologies, Young observed that poststructuralism was intimately linked to Algerian decolonization, emerging from the dissolution of the philosophical axioms of the colonial edice. Anticolonialism, then, is not a mere replica of European ideas but rather a critical act of interlocution, where the Enlightenment is less originary source than arena of contestation. A shift in focus to the indigenous Americas, furthermore, throws the Euro-diffusionist metanarrative into disarray. The indigenous peoples resisted European conquest from the very beginning, without the benet of the Enlightenment. Indigenous leaders in the Spanish Americas did not have to study in Salamanca to

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

379

oppose Spanish conquest, just as natives in North America did not have to study at the Sorbonne or Oxford to oppose the French or the British. If, in the long view, the colonial debates go back to the Reconquista and the Conquista, in the relatively short twentieth-century view, (post) colonial critique also has multiple beginnings, locations, and trajectories. In the broad sense, it forms part of what we call the postwar seismic shift in scholarship that led to the (still all too partial) decolonization of thought. Central twentieth-century eventsWorld War II, the Shoah, Third World independence movementsall simultaneously delegitimized the West as axiomatic center of reference and afrmed the rights of non-European peoples straining against the yoke of colonialism and neocolonialism. Thus, if Nazism, fascism, and the Holocaust revealed in all their horror the internal sickness of Europe as a site of racist totalitarianism, the Third World liberation struggles revealed the external revolt against Western domination, provoking a crisis in the taken-for-granted narrative of European-led Progress. May 68, in France, in this sense, was not simply a generational revolt; it was also a belated aftereffect of colonial insurgencies, much as the 1968 movement in the United States was partially a byproduct of the Civil Rights struggle and resistance to the colonialist war in Vietnam. If French revolts were haunted by Dien Bien Phu and the Algerian revolution, the U.S. revolts were haunted by My Lai, Havana, Selma, and Wounded Knee. The seismic shift refers to the intellectual/discursive fallout of all these events, seen as catalytic for a broad decolonization of knowledge and academic culture. Disciplines in which the West was assumed to be both speaking subject and object of study were submitted to critique. Critical and even insurgent proposals were expressed in recombinatory coinagesrevisionist history, radical philosophy, symmetrical anthropology, and radical pedagogythat suggested a reconceptualization of canonical disciplines from the periphery. The thrust was doubly critical, rst of the presence of colonialist and Eurocentric perspectives and second of the absence of non-European and nonwhite faculty, students, and cultural thematics. The seismic shift impacted many disciplines, in different ways and at different times. To cite just two examples, a decolonizing economics in the form of dependency theory (and later systems theory and core/periphery theory), represented by such gures as Andre Gunder Frank, James Petras, Paulo Singer, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Samir Amin, rejected the free market-based development ideologies that conceived a Promethean West as catalyzing an economic takeoff that would recapitulate the historical sequencing of Western development. The same hierarchical world system controlled by metropolitan capitalist countries, they argued, generated both First World wealth and Third World poverty as opposite faces of the same

380

new literary history

coin. Anthropology as a nexus of colonial power and knowledge, similarly, was critiqued by gures such as Roger Bastide, Pierre Clastres, Sir Jack Goody, Talal Asad, Angela Gilliam, Johannes Fabian, and Renato Rosaldo, thus generating talk of shared and reverse anthropology. Deleuzian anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, within this spirit, has redened the mission of anthropology as the permanent and unending decolonization of thought, in a situation where the anthropologist merely relationalizes interpretations and where the goal is not objectication but subjectication.16 We would also take issue with genealogies for postcolonial theory that privilege national locations over transnational interlocutions. Dichotomous terms such as inside/outside, sender/receiver, and native/foreign draw overly bold lines between points of origin and points of reception within strongly demarcated national spaces. Youngs claim that Postcolonial theory came from outside the U.S., for example, implies that postcolonial theory travelled to the United States from some other place of origin, but in our view postcolonial theory emerged from a convulsion that impacted the entire world. Any strictly national framing provides only a very blunt instrument for reecting on transnational intellectual ows. The seismic shift emerged in multiple locations, due to concrete historical conditions, notably the formation and dissolution of colonial empires and the overlays of multiply diasporized cultures existing in relations of subordination and domination within many nation-states, all combined with the emergence of institutional spaces where knowledgeable academics could articulate the issues. While Young is right to score the exceptionalist narcissism that would treat the postcolonial as entirely American, no country, including the United States, should be written out of the larger narrative. If postcolonial theory did not come from America (that is, the United States), it did partially come from the Americas (that is, from the resistant thought of indigenous peoples and Afro-diasporic minorities in the Americas, those Skip Gates once called the rst deconstructionists). As Native American, Black, Chicano/a, and Euro-American radicals assumed roles as teachers, they developed new programs and courses incorporating the histories, theories, and perspectives of those who had traditionally been marginalized by patriarchal Eurocentric elites. Professors began to integrate race, class, gender, nation, sexuality, and empire into their pedagogy and scholarship. Beginning in the late 1960s Fanon and Memmi were widely read in the American academe (even more than in France), thanks to the enthusiasm of the Black Panthers and to the Black Marxism of gures like Walter Rodney, Charles Hamilton, Angela Davis, Cedric Robinson, Manning Marable, and many others,

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

381

along with the more radical wings of Ethnic Studies (a coalitionary project comprising Native American Studies, African-American Studies, Latino Studies, Asian-American Studies, and so forth). Nor were any of these projects, although located in North America, merely American. Activists calling for Third World Studies saw Native American struggles as linked to native struggles elsewhere; the black liberation movement saw itself as linked to decolonization in Africa; Latino movements saw themselves as linked to Latin America, and so forth, while all the movements formed part of the struggle against U.S. militaristic imperialism. What sometimes gets lost in discussions of postcolonial theory is the dappled variety of the actual scholarly workwhat might be awkwardly called the transnational decolonizing corpusgenerated by the seismic shift. The broader corpus includes work by hundreds of scholars in many countries and practiced under diverse rubricssystems and core-periphery theory, Black Marxism, border theory, subaltern studies (in its international variants), the modernity/coloniality project, critical race theory, transnational feminism, diaspora studies, antiracist and anti-Orientalist media critique, critical whiteness studies, minor Francophone studies, social-movement analysis, radical pedagogy, dialogical anthropology, counter-Enlightenment philosophy, alterglobalization theory, to name just a few of many adversarial formations. Despite tensions between and within the diverse modes of critique, what all these elds have in common is a critical engagement with the interrelated historical legacies of colonial and racial oppression. While one could possibly subordinate all these formations to the broad term postcolonial and see the others as subelds, it is also important to let their distinct voices and emphases be heard apart from that amalgamating rubric. Some genealogies of postcolonial theory, moreover, are overly anchored in a great man view of intellectual history. In the intellectual equivalent of trickle down economics, the grand ideas of the matres penser trickle down to the peasants and workers laboring in the academic elds and factories of the postcolonial. In this sense, we prefer the term postcolonial critique to postcolonial theory, since the latter term risks implying that all those not versed in theory need not apply to the club. We are very sympathetic, in this sense, to Youngs more hospitable and nonnalizing formulation that sees postcolonial theory as a body of perspectives and practices that has never involved a singular theoretical formation, but rather an interrelated set of critical and counterintuitive perspectives, a complex network of paronymous concepts and heterogenous practices that have been developed out of traditions of resistance to global historical trajectory of imperialism and colonialism (20). In line with this formulation, it is perhaps time to

382

new literary history

pivot away from a vertical emphasis on auratic intellectualswhereby epigonic scholars line up to declare fealty to academic nobles through obsequious citation, as if we were living in a neoscholastic ageto a more horizontal emphasis on critical elds. In other words, we should emphasize the collective aspect of these schools of thought as part of what might be called the intellectual commons. Crediting Spivaks Can the Subaltern Speak? for catalyzing the epistemological leap that made possible the move from the anticolonial to the postcolonial, Chakrabarty then lauds the deeper turning towards the human evidenced by Bhabhas turn: one that appreciated difference as a philosophical question and at the same time repudiated its essentialization by identity politics, a move that was channeled not through identity politics but through difference-philosophies (4). While Chakrabartys praise for the timely interventions of Spivak and Bhabha is completely legitimate, we wonder why the stigmatized diacritical opposite to the valorized difference philosophies has to be identity politics. Here Chakrabarty erects a false dichotomy that one would have thought superceded. On many levels, the politics of identity and difference philosophies have been, as it were, mutually invaginated, with many shared vocabularies and concerns. We have all learned from poststructuralism that identities are not xed entities expressing a natural difference; they emerge from a uid set of historically diverse experiences, within overlapping, polycentric circles of identication. That identity and experience are mediated, narrated, constructed, caught up in the spiral of representation does not mean, however, that historical oppressions based on identity have come to an end. What Spivak famously called strategic essentialism and what Hall referred to as the ctional necessity of arbitrary closures, and putting a period to the sentence, were attempts to resolve this dilemma. Such formulations allowed for communities of identication, even if those communities were multiple, discontinuous, and partly imaginary.17 While postcolonial theory rejected essentialist articulations of identity and biologistic and transhistorical determinations of gender, race, and sexual identity, as political agents we felt compelled to support demands implicitly premised on categories elsewhere rejected as essentialist, leading to a paradoxical situation in which theory deconstructed totalizing myths while activism nourished them. Chakrabartys text manifests the disregard of a certain left, shared with most of the right, toward identity politics, a disregard voiced by such writers as Walter Benn Michaels, Pierre Bourdieu, Loc Wacquant, and Slavoj iek. We have a fairly good idea why the right hates identity politics; it is too black, too foreign, too Muslim, too activist. But it is not so clear why some on the postcolonial left also dislike identity politics.

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

383

Usually, they dismiss it as essentialist, binarist, Manichean, and if they are French (right or left), they call it identitaire, commmunitairiste, and Anglo-Saxon. In France, Franois Durpaire points out, it is always easy to say that one is not opposed to blacks or Arabs, but only to black communitarianism and Arab communitarianism.18 In other words, the actual people discriminated against on the basis of their visible or audible difference disappear into the mists of stigmatized abstractions. While it is easy to mock a caricatural identity politicsthe right does it all the timemillions of people, such as blacks and Latinos in American cities, immigrant racaille in the banlieues of France, favela marginais in Brazilare daily proled, brutalized, and even killed for what is projected as their identity. The right forbids us to speak of race because to speak of race is to be racist; a certain left, meanwhile, warns us not to speak of identity politics because it is essentialist and philosophically unsophisticated, thus disarming us in the struggle against identity-based oppressions. Chakrabartys homage to difference philosophies also calls attention to a subtle difference between the two essays. Young suggests that we should retire the expression the Otheras the modern form of the primitive and a remainder that conates a category drawn from the philosophy of consciousness with the history of colonial contact. Quoting Gabriela Basterra on the other separated from the self by an untraversable distance, Young argues, correctly in our view, that we should abandon the category altogether as an obstacle to emancipatory thought. Chakrabarty, meanwhile, praises the very difference-philosophies that erected the category of the other in the rst place. While we recognize the crucial intellectual role of difference philosophies, we would argue that there are many paths to postcolonial critique. Looking back at postwar intellectual history, what is perhaps most dispiriting is the failure of many of the difference philosophers to theorize race and coloniality. Most of the major poststructuralist thinkers were progressive in their politics, but apart from tienne Balibar, Bruno Latour, the Foucault of the racial state, and to a certain extent Derrida, most of the matres left unexamined the racial/imperial architectonics of France itself. Building on a Foucauldian metaphor, Ann Stoler has written provocatively about French theorys colonial aphasia, an impaired condition that interrupts connections through disabled histories and severed links in pathways of association.19 Little of Frances high-powered theoretical energy across the disciplines (so incisive about political culture, totalitarianisms, state structures and class), she writes, was aimed at the racialized foundations of the French state.20 A theory of difference animated theoretical movements from semiotics to poststructuralism,

384

new literary history

yet any appeal to racialized and gendered difference was dismissed as differentialist. Both Bourdieu and Derrida, Stoller writes, divorced their sharp critiques of scholastic knowledge from the racial milieus of French empire that they knew intimately and on the ground.21 Cultural difference, in sum, was deferred. Might it be symptomatic, in this sense, that the veritable explosion, especially since the 2005 banlieue rebellions, of French adversary scholarship concerning (post)colonialism, racism, Islamophobia, and the indigenes de la Republique, rarely takes difference philosophy as its inspiration or point of departure?

The Whither: Postcolonial Indigeneity

Our projections concerning the futures of postcolonial studies resonate both with the indigenous theme addressed by Young and with the ecological theme addressed by Chakrabarty. Here too the Indian has not vanished, and indigeneity still troubles postcolonial theory. The question of intellectual property rights exemplies the historical morphing that takes us from Columbus to the CEOs of contemporary corporations. The word patents referred in sixteenth-century Europe to the ofcial royal letters (litterae patents) by which sovereigns conferred privileges, rights, and land titles on various members of the nobility, for example, the capitanias in Brazil granted by the Portuguese king. In the Age of Discovery, these letters became associated with the literal conquest of territory; ve hundred years later, they are associated with transnational corporations conquest of economic rights in the Global South, whose biodiversity is very much linked to the cultural knowledges of indigenous peoples. The colonizing powers, after enclosing communal land within Europe itself, enclosed and appropriated communally held indigenous land under the pretext that the native peoples had no title to the land. Just as rights were distributed according to a racialized schema in the colonial past, today in the postcolonial present the question of copyrights has become indissociable from the corporate appropriation of indigenous resources. The very idea of title has become linked to conceptions of contracts between individual actors or corporations, an individualist conception of intellectual property rights completely alien to many indigenous peoples. Unlike pirates and conquistadores, transnational corporations no longer seize only gold and silver; rather, they declare themselves entitled or empatented to exploit traditional communal forms of knowledge such as rainforest herbal remedies, for example, which they then market at high cost to the world at large, including even

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

385

to the indigenous descendants of the people who originally developed the remedies. The Amazon, in this sense, forms the epicenter of the conicts emerging from the crisis of capitalist productivism and the domination of nature. The process initiated in 1492 reaches its triste tropical nale as globalizing capitalism strains against the limits of planetary ecology, while coming into naked conict with the indigenous peoples occupying the land. The era of neoliberalism and the weakened nation-state has increasingly brought direct confrontations pitting transnational corporations against indigenous groups defending their rights, in a new contact zone (Pratt) where land, biodiversity, and copyright are all at stake. As the planet reaps the bitter fruits of instrumental reason, the way of life of those who were always there, of those who never went away, opens up a new conictual horizon of the politically possible. Biodiversity and sociodiversity, hegemonic biopower and indigenous sovereignty, the local and the global, all become interlinked, unstable, and interactive. First contact is still occurring, but this time the Indians come armed not with bows and arrows but rather with computers, digital cameras, and websites. Corporate rationality, at the height of its arrogance but also at the end of its rope, meets articulate, cyber savvy indigeneity. Yanomami leader Davi Kopenawa Yanomami, whose group was devastated by an induced epidemic, claims that white people design their words in visible form because their thinking is full of forgetfulness. In an essay provocatively entitled Discovering White PeopleYanomami offers his own version of the dialectic of Enlightenment. In language redolent of forest commons in Europe, he writes whites used to live like us in the forest, ... but once they created tools, machines, cars and planes, they became euphoric and said: We are the only people to be so ingenious, only we know how to produce machines and merchandise. That is when they lost all wisdom. First they damaged their own land, before going off to work in other lands in order to endlessly create their merchandise. And they never stopped to ask: If we destroy the earth, will we be able to create another one?22 Indigenous critique incarnates a temporal paradox: it is very traditional and ancient and, at the same time, very radical and new. Not only does it challenge the logics of colonialism, Eurocentrism, and the nation-state; it also questions the productivism of Marxism, the nomadism of postmodernism, and the constructivism of poststructuralism. We see this paradox of maximum radicality and maximum traditionality in the dialogue between the thinkers of indigeneity and the advocates of radical pedagogy. In Red Pedagogy, Sandy Grande, a professor of PeruvianQuechua origins teaching at Connecticut College, dialogues with the

386

new literary history

advocates of critical pedagogy, a radical left movement inuenced by the economics of Marx and the pedagogics of Paulo Freire. While giving the radicals immense credit, she nds them wanting from an indigenous perspective. The left speaks of democracy, she points out, but from an indigenous perspective, democracy has often been a weapon of mass disempowerment. Marxists speak of revolution, but Latin American revolutions have dispossessed Miskitus, Sumus, Ramas, and Quechua. Radical pedagogy lambasts colonialism, yet remains informed by individualism, anthropocentrism, and stagist progressivism, epistemic biases that worsen the ecological crisis. Students are encouraged to be independent (implying an individualist suspicion of collaboration), successful (that is, competitive), and antitraditional. Thus, far-left thought does not go far enough; Marxism is anticapitalist (yet shares many of capitalisms deep cultural assumptions), and critical pedagogy is transformational (but devalues intergenerational knowledge). Grande seeks to engage with all these currents, while literally indigenizing them.23 We can also see the relevance of indigeneity to the questions Chakrabarty raises about ecology and climate change. Now that climate change threatens to reduce us to bare forked animals biding the pelting of merciless storms, we can begin to see links between the crises (and utopias) of indigeneity and those of the West. We would make the link by appealing to what has become an increasingly popular topos or locus amenus within left-critical thoughtthe idea of the commons. At once archly old-fashioned and hypercontemporary, the metaphor of the commons has appealingly multiple resonances. It simultaneously evokes ancient patterns of communal land ownershipthe poet Shelleys equal participation of the commonage of natureand the contemporary digital commons of the creative software movements. The notion of commonly held land forms a social norm shared by diverse social formations ranging from thirteenth-century England of the Great Charter of the Forest (insightfully analyzed by Peter Linebaugh) to the longstanding social systems of indigenous peoples. The term evokes a cornucopia of sociopolitical projects and referencesthe common wealth, the common people, Thomas Paines Common Sense, Marxs primitive communism, the Paris Commune, and Creative Commons. As a theory, the commons vests property in the community and emphasizes the collective dimension of ownership. It goes back to the shared elds, grazing lands, and forests of Europe as well to the communally held sacred land of indigenous peoples. The term evokes communism, but without that terms Stalinist baggage, and socialism, without the social-democratic blandness that so easily turns it into capitalism-with-a-human-face.

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

387

Currently proliferating in the writing of gures as diverse as Naomi Klein, Slavoj iek, Vandana Shiva, Elinor Ostrom, David Graeber, Peter Linebaugh, Bruno Latour, Michael Hardt, and Toni Negri, the term the commons reects a growing tendency, since the 1990s, to counterpose the co-optive nostrums of privatizing neoliberalism against the haunting utopia of the commons. It surfaces in Chakrabartys text via Bruno Latours invocation of a progressive composition of a common world. The commons evokes resistance to enclosure in all its forms, whether in its early protocapitalist form of fencing in commonly shared land in Europe, or in its colonial rosy dawn form of appropriating the ofcially declared terra nullius of indigenous peoples, or in its contemporary forms of judicial restraints such as patent and intellectual property as means to police the ownership of ideas. Contemporary enclosure forms a direct threat not only to indigenous peoplethreatened with the loss of their land, streams, forests, biodiversity, and even knowledgebut also to the ecological sustenance of the planet generally. In the wake of the fall of communism, and the crisis of capitalism, the commons evokes the planetary struggle to reclaim the common good. The Western Left has increasingly recognized that the social movements in Latin America, from Zapatismo in Mexico and the PT in Brazil on to the indigenous movements in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador, now form the cutting edge of social change. In the wake of indigenous activism and the UN declaration of indigenous rights, Ecuador and Bolivia have begun to inscribe indigenous rights and even the right of Nature not to be harmed into their constitutions, and Bolivia now has a Ministry of Decolonization. While classical Marxism is anticapitalist yet ultimately productivist, the Andean movements are often more radically anticapitalist in their assertion that mother earth should not be commodied. This culturally instilled refusal of commodication was one ide-force that helped enable the Bolivian movement to prevent the corporate privatization of water. Activists speak of communal forms of politics and of what Arturo Escobar calls the political activation of relational ontologies. In Escobars account, the activists call for (1) substantive rather than formal democracy, (2) biocentric sustainable development, and (3) interculturality in polyethnic societies. The goal is to move beyond capitalism, liberalism, statism, monoculturalism, productivism, Puritanism, and the ideology of growth.24 For many indigenous societies, culture implies a norm of egalitarian economic arrangements, ecological balance, and consensus governance. Thus, indigenous culture and economic globalization confront each other in the form of very real battles fought in the name of biodiversity, communal intellectual property rights, and the noncommodication of

388

new literary history

nature. Culture and economics become deeply enmeshed, as ancestral traditions of communal property and collective decision making meld with a rejection of instrumental/productivist attitudes toward nature. Indigenous resistance thus passes through culture, as the Andean Left wins victories against the transnational corporations by mobilizing the cultural memory of the ayllus, or the chronotopic space-time of indigenous sovereignty. Coming full circle, we would link the commons as conceived by indigenous Red Atlantic cultures to the theory and praxis of the commons within the West itself. The two enclosuresof the commons in the west of the indigenous worldare metaphorically and metonymically linked. The same class that enclosed land in Europe also enclosed indigenous land outside of Europe. The privatization of the English commons preceded that of the Irish commons, which preceded that of the indigenous commons. Henry Georges cry that we must make land common property in Progress and Poverty (1979) echoed the cries of native American leaders such as Tecumseh, who argued in 1810 that there was only one way to check and stop this evil [of landgrabs]for all the Redmen to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land [which] belongs to all for the use of each.25 In the present day, we can see an analogy between Andean struggles over the natural commons (for example, water) and the various Reclaim the Streets and Occupy struggles over the commons (including the right to conduct protests in public parks). What interests us is not the projective moral qualities of the romanticized Indian individualthe noble savagebut rather the embodied and articulated political model of indigenous consensus societies. As a situated utterance, the conversation changes with the historically shaped challenges and ideological needs, as different features of what we call the discourse of radical indigeneity come to the fore in different epochs: the critique of monarchy during the Renaissance (Montaigne), the idea of Indian freedom during the Enlightenment (Rousseau, Paine), the critique of bourgeois property relations in the nineteenth century (Marx and Engels), the valorization of feminism (Paula Gunn Allen) and societies without coercion in the twentieth century (Pierre Clastres, Marshall Sahlins, David Graeber), and the protest against ecological devastation and transnational exploitation of biodiversity in the twenty-rst century. Viveiros de Castros work poses a provocative question: what does anthropology owe intellectually to the peoples that it studies? The most interesting concepts, problems, entities and agents introduced by anthropological theory, he suggests, nd their source in the imaginative power of the societies (or peoples, or collectives) that the anthropolo-

whence and whither postcolonial theory?

389

gists propose to explain.26 He reports on a symposium in Manchester, England, where an audience member (who turned out to be Stuart Hall) remarked about his talk on Indian philosophy that your Indians seem to have studied in Paris. By his own account, de Castro responded to Halls boutade with a boutade of his own: No, in fact exactly the opposite occurred: the Parisians went to study with the Indians.27 We have tried to show here that Europeans have been studying with the Indians ever since sailor/merchants from Normandy were welcomed as strangers on Tupi-Brazilian shores. Over the ve centuries since Columbus and Cabral, the unending (and uneven) interchange between European and indigenous thought has lent support to such varied progressive causes as Jacobin and socialist revolutions, confederation and the separation of powers, class, gender, and sexual equality, communal property, ecology, antiproductivism, and alterglobalization. While many Eurocentric commentators see Indians as vanished and behind the times, one can also see them as ahead of the curve. What is clear is that indigenous people and their nonindigenous interlocutors have posed probing questions about culture, property, power, energy, wealth, and equality, throwing up challenges to the nostrums of modernism, postmodernism, and postcolonialism. It is time we took those challenges seriously. New York University
NOTES Portions of this essay elaborate on arguments made in our bookRace in Translation: Culture Wars around the Postcolonial Atlantic (New York: New York Univ. Press, 2012). Other portions elaborate on points made in a 2005 presentation, entitled Tupi or not Tupi a Tupi Theorist, for the Cornell School of Criticism and Theory. Other portions elaborate points made in a 2009 presentation by Robert Stam, entitled The Red Atlantic: Tupi Theory and the Franco-Brazilian-Indigenous Dialogue. We would like to thank both the School of Criticism and the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for providing enriching opportunities to work out some of the ideas expressed in this essay. 1 On the hyphen in the Judeo-Muslim and the Arab-Jew, see Ella Shohat, Rethinking Jews and Muslims, MER 178 (1992): 2529; and Taboo Memories and Diasporic Visions: Columbus, Palestine and Arab-Jews, in Performing Hybridity, ed. May Joseph and Jennifer Fink (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1999), 13156. 2 See, for example, Allan Harris Cutler and Helen Elmquist Cutler, The Jew as Ally of the Muslim: Medieval Roots of Anti-Semitism (Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1986); Ammiel Alcalay, After Jews and Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1993); and Anouar Majid, We Are All Moors: Ending Centuries of Crusades Against Muslims and Other Minorities (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 2009). 3 See Domenico Losurdo, A Linguagem do Imprio, trans. Jaime A. Clasen (So Paulo: Boitempo, 2010). 4 See Jan Carew, Fulcrums of Change (Trenton, NJ: Africa World, 1988). 5 Barbara Fuchs, Mimesis and Empire: The New World, Islam, and European Identities (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

390

new literary history

6 It should also, ideally, incorporate the Crusades demonization of the indel as part of the process by which Europe constituted itself as an imaginary continent through opposition to an Islam which had arrived at the very gates of Vienna. 7 For example, in Shohats Notes on the Post-Colonial, Social Text 31/32 (1992): 99113 and Shohat and Stam, Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multicultralsim and the Media (New York: Routledge, 1994). 8 See Eduardo Batalha Viveiros de Castro, Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of Objects into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies, Common Knowledge 10, no. 3 (2004): 46384. 9 Jack D. Forbes argues that native people from the Americas might have traveled to Europe before Columbus. See Jack D. Forbes, The American Discovery of Europe (Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 2007). 10 Mikhail Bakhtin, Discourse in the Novel, in The Dialogic Imagination (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1982), 370. 11 Afonso Arinos de Melo Franco, O Indio Brasileiro e a Revolucao Francesa: As Origens Brasileiras de Teoria da Bondade Natural (Rio de Janeiro: Topbooks, 2002). 12 Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari, What is Philosophy?, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1996), 109. 13 See Donald Grinde, Jr. and Bruce Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1991). 14 Quoted in Benedito Nunes, Oswald Cannibal (So Paulo: Perspectiva, 1979), 73. 15 Nunes, Oswald, 34. 16 See the collection of interviews in Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, ed. Renato Sztutman (Rio de Janeiro: Azougue, 2008), 79. 17 On Gayatri Spivaks strategic essentialism, see Elizabeth Grosz,Criticism, Feminism and the Institution: An Interview with Gayatri Spivak, Thesis Eleven, no. 10/11 (1985): 17589; reprinted in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak,The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues (London and New York: Routledge, 1990), 117. On what Stuart Hall referred to as the ctional necessity of arbitrary closures, see Stuart Hall, Minimal Selves, in Identity, ed. Lisa Appignanesi (London: Institute for Contemporary Arts, 1987), 45. 18 Franois Durpaire, France blanche, colre noire (Paris: O. Jacob, 2006), 13. 19 See Ann Laura Stoler, Colonial Aphasia: Race and Disabled Histories in France, Public Culture 23, no. 1 (2011): 12156. 20 Stoler, Colonial Aphasia, 141. 21 Stoler, Colonial Aphasia,131. 22 Davi Kopenawa Yanomami, Discovering White People, in Povos Indigenas No Brasil 19962000 (So Paulo: Instituto Socioambiantal, 2000). 23 Sandy Grande, Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld, 2004). 24 Arturo Escobar, Latin America at a Crossroads: Between Alternative Modernizations, Postliberalism, and Postdevelopment, Lecture at the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, New York Univ., October 29, 2009. 25 Quoted in Peter Linebaugh, The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 2008), 246. 26 Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Mtaphysiques Cannibales: Lignes dAnthropologie PostStructurale (Paris: PUF, 2009), 5. 27 See Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Etnologia Brasileira, in O Que Ler na Ciencia Social Brasileira (19701995), ed. Sergio Miceli (So Paulo: Anpocs, 2002), 152.