How does Achebe reject the notion of European universalism, represented by critical statements that generalize the particularity out of African literature?

    Chenua Achebe in "Colonialist Criticism" vehemently criticizes the failure of European criticism to understand the African literature on its own terms. He powerfully attacks the sense of superiority found in colonialist critic sees the African literature on its own terms. He powerfully attacks the sense of superiority found in colonialist criticism. The latter-day colonist critic sees the African writer as a "somewhat unfinished European" who will grow up one day and write like every other European.

    The arrogant European says that they civilize the savage Africans. Being so called superior they get abundance of knowledge with which they control African literature in English. Achebe writes: “To the colonist mind it was always of the utmost importance to be able to say: ‘I know my natives,’ a claim which implied two things at once:
a) The native was really quite simple
b) Understanding him and controlling him went hand in hand.
“So, he urges the colonist critic to be purged of the superiority and arrogance”.

    He rejects any idea of writing like a western author i.e. he rejects myth of universalism. As an African writer he will always remain true to African historicity. He is of the opinion that every literature must seek things that belong unto its people, and must speak of a particular place. Rejecting the myth of universalism, Achebe stands in favor of localization. He is of the opinion that colonized should begin to write their own history ignoring what has already been mythologized. He demands earnestness of the writer to his time, circumstances, locality and historicity.

    Chinua Achebe criticizes African and British critics of contemporary African literature for ignoring the particularity of the African experience and for praising universality. Those culturally colonized African intellectuals think that western culture, art and literature are superior to their African native culture. He views that westerners write the text based on African writers and African subject matter with the intention of colonization. Through the text, they circulate power and create certain truths for African. As a result, westerners control over them, but African writers are not aware of the fact of being colonized.

    Summing up, literature for Achebe, is a function of society. He puts literature in service for the need to alter specific things in specific places especially attitudes. It is in this context that he attacks universalism and pitches in for social earnestness on the part of African writers.

Post Colonial Theory     Without colonialism there would be no post-colonialism. Colonialism is about the dominance of a strong nation over another weaker one. Colonialism happens when a strong nation sees that its material interest and affluence require that it expand outside its borders. Colonialism is the acquisition of the colonialist, by brute force, of extra markets, extra resources of raw material and manpower from the colonies. The colonialist, while committing these atrocities against the natives and territories of the colonies, convinces himself that he stands on high moral grounds.The colonized are savages in need of education and rehabilitation The culture of the colonized is not up to the standard of the colonizer, and it’s the moral duty of the colonizer to do something about polishing it. The colonized nation is unable to manage and run itself properly, and thus it needs the wisdom and expertise of the colonizer. The colonized nation embraces a set of religious beliefs incongruent and incompatible with those of the colonizer, and consequently, it is God’s given duty of the colonizer to bring those stray people to the right path. The colonized people pose dangerous threat to themselves and to the civilized world if left alone; and thus it is in the interest of the civilized world to bring those people under control. As a result of this the white Europeans ventured adventurously into the so called underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia and dominated a lot of geographical spaces there. They subjugated the natives, imposed their will at large on them. Read More...

Edward Said    In his essay" The World the text, and the Critic", Edward said emphasizes on a form of criticism that is fundamentally oppositional and antithetical to the hegemonic culture. Said argues critic have a responsibility to intervene in the formation of cultures challenging the hegemonic power of culture formation. For that he believes in criticism from the position of marginality. For Said, all texts are worldly that are involved in particular historical situation. He persistently insists on the worldliness of the text that is related to the social, cultural and economic phenomena. He says" style neutralizes the wordlessness" and makes the critical discourse as world less with an exclusive interest in textuality, and rejects the idea of New Criticism. For him, on contrary to new Critics, a text is something historically and materially more than a critical occasion, it is a social and political monument. Though said takes a text as a historical and political moment, he denies accepting Bakhtin's dialogic text. He does not regard a text as heteroglossic. Rather he discovers discursive situation in a text that are more like the unequal relations of colonizes, colonizes, and believes that many texts are characterized by “self- confirming will to power.” The self-assumed power of colonizer easily may dominate or suppress other's voices. In the written discourse to the colonizer imposes his own perspective as in the physical world. This is a proof of the text's being affected by circumstances. In the light of his own thought, Said criticizes Derrida and Foucault for their deconstructive strategies emphasizing on the impartibility of texts. As such their views clearly undermine the intention of the author in placing his text in the world and interfere with the critic's responsibility to challenge the hegemonic power of cultural formations. Criticism should seek a potential space for alternative acts to overthrow the monopoly of the ruling class. Read More....