|
Write
your comment on Edward Said's views
that criticism should be offered from
the position of marginality and it must
avoid complicity with the ruling voice
of culture.
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. It should be worldly,
and oppose monocentrism thereby creating
subversive moments that facilitate the
emergence of marginal voices. The criticism
offered by standing at the marginal
is always a true criticism for him.
To conclude,
Said offers criticism from marginal
standpoint which makes it politically
and historically more aware and responsible.
In contrast to all totalizing theories
like Deconstruction and New Criticism,
Said advocates for a self-conscious
independent antithetical and oppositional
criticism that embrace worldly criticism.
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...
Chinua
Achebe 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.
Read
More.. |