Postcolonial Studies. A Materialist Critique. ByBenita Parry. FULL ACCESS Problems in current theories of colonial discourse. Pages Type: Chapter; Author(s): Benita Parry. Is part of Book. Title: Postcolonial studies: a materialist critique; Author(s): Benita Parry; Date: ; Publisher: Routledge. In this article Parry writes about Gayatri Shakravorty Spivak’s and Homi Bhabha’s rapprochements towards post-colonialism. Both of the authors are theorists.
|Published (Last):||9 February 2008|
|PDF File Size:||5.83 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Part 1 of “Establishing Literary Independence: Hybridity in Zimbabwean Literature”. The theorists she mentions are Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha.
Among the approaches to post-colonial fiction she problematizes is Bhabha’s contention that the hybridization of colonialist literature by native writers is “a dramatization to be distinguished from the ‘exercise of dependent xolonial relations through narcissistic definition'” p. It is this approach to post-colonial literature — particularly the literature of Zimbabwean writers — that this essay is intended to discuss.
Through the natives’ strange questions it is possible to see, with historical hindsight, what they resisted in questioning the presence of the English — as religious mediation and as cultural and linguistic medium To the extent to which coolonial is a form of defensive warfare, then mimicry marks those moments of civil disobedience within the discipline aprry civility: When the words of the master become the site of hybridity — the warlike sign of the native — then we may not colonnial read between the lines, but even seek to change the often coercive reality that they so lucidly contain.
Parry claims that Bhabha’s argument is not as as tight as it should be, leaving it “vulnerable to innocent misconstruction. Within the context of this argument, the use and control of English exhibited by Zimbabwean writers of fiction appears particularly important.
These writers produce a narrative that can move Zimbabwean people from a status of subject to that of hybrid. And the hybrid status of native peoples enables them to “write back” against the literature of colonialism. It is only fitting that this essay notes the limited capacity of literature to combat the imposition of colonial forces onto native peoples.
There are numerous ways to subvert the hegemony of colonialism, and discourse is an effective means to do so.
Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse | University of St Andrews
In the construction of language by Zimbabwean writers cultural factors are most influential. In fact, culture and society are much more influential in the construction of language than the standardized use of English learned via to colonialist instruction. The use of language, therefore, lends itself to countering the cultural limitations inflicted upon a colonized people. Language, then, demonstrates cultural distinctiveness rather than simply national or international standardization.
Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse
The establishment of universal standards derives from an international critical discourse surrounding the use of literature. This critical discourse serves as a site upon which non-traditional, and arguably non-Western, literature becomes so highly scrutinized that its literary value is neglected and its ability to act as a force of resistance is overlooked.
Subject-Object Relations in Commonwealth Literature.
The Fiction of Imperialism: Reading Between International Relations and Postcolonialism. The Idea of Universality in Literature.