The post-colonial fever

Diaspora writers are often criticised by postcolonial and cultural critics for trying to enter the western market of publication

After achieving the status of a post-modern intellectual group in ways not known to all, Bangladeshi English academia surely has grown the habit of announcing itself as “postcolonial” now, with little interest in the post-war Bangladesh and its literature. To many, postcolonialism is simply Indian (and sometimes African) post-independence reality and response.

In the Universities, among the researchers who have some experience in the field of “Cultural Studies” that made its way into higher studies here in Bangladesh not more than twenty years ago, postcolonialism has undoubtedly become a popular “discourse”. It is supposed to add a serious flavour to the discussions of English academic elites, in formal or informal symposiums.

What does postcolonialism really mean in Bangladesh? Have we yet succeeded in making it one of our own discourses, or is it still just an abstraction in our mind of a supposedly prestigious, and often emotion-evoking topic? First of all, postcolonial-ism is not one of our own argots. A Bangladeshi, for the contemporary trends in this particular field, will not be able to understand the dialect and the dialectic of this discourse only from its rigid theoretical point of view that hails, ironically, from foreign lands with neocolonial interests.

If we really need to be postcolonial, then we must cultivate the habit of being postcolonial in every aspect. There are academicians, researchers here in Bangladesh who think we need to carry out researches in English so the world might know our thoughts and ideas, our stance and strength. And then there are some who, like Kenyan writer Thiong’o, manage to be resilient and try to resist all sorts of western temptation.

But there is a concern bigger than that. There is something more threatening than language, the frustrating fact of whose impurity has long occupied the minds of cultural critics (the likes of Derrida) in such a way that it has thus managed to hoodwink the poindexters into ignoring the more subtle, yet the more obvious germs of colonisation- the “grammar” of manipulation, the “format” of reformation, and the “structure” that obliterates originality.

It is said “the colonisers’ language is permanently tainted and to write in it involves a crucial acquiescence in colonial structures” (Peter Barry). What happens when we lose the linguistic concerns with a kind of strange indifference, and directly, with full understanding and defense, adheres to the “structures” themselves? Does that not make us subservient? Can “subversive criticality” that sees all, attempts to thwart all colonial plans, and deconstructs the colonial structures, not see the fundamental problem with our still sticking to foreign formats to carry out our own researches, about our own reality?      

We have long depended on cultural/intellectual piracy and we are very quick to adopt, adapt and adept. We have pirated our social and political systems from the West. We have pirated fashion/style from the Bollywood. We have pirated our religion from the Middle-East. And we have pirated even the physical foundation of knowledge, our one chance to be original- the research methodology.

The popular formats to be followed in a research are- The Modern Language Association of America, popularly known as MLA; American Psychological Association, popularly known as APA, and The Chicago Manual of Style, popularly known as CMS or CMOS. If I may derail, for once, from the serious track and temperament of my argument, then a research that does not even remotely concern postcolonialism may very well stick to an internationally accepted standard. But is it not utterly ironical that a postcolonial study should adhere to a foreign format that does not even make sense with all its complex and unnecessary details?

Diaspora writers are often criticized by postcolonial and cultural critics for trying to enter the western market of publication. What, following a foreign research methodology, then is, other than trying the same thing only in a sophisticated way? Because all the researchers, academicians and even the readers know the purpose of abstracts, footnotes, work citations, bibliographies and often, keywords. The acknowledgements are validating academic supports that strengthen the argument and take it to an acceptable position. They show that a researcher is “informed”.   This may sound very unprofessional, even childish to some ears, but is it really necessary to put the last name first and the first name last? What if one places the name of the book before the name of the author? What if one randomizes? Does it really matter if the 8th edition of the MLA Handbook, published by Modern Language Association, has kept or omitted the city of publication from bibliography or not? How do these formats help the catalogue? Which catalogue are we talking about? Which library sanctions “prestige”? Which journals determine scholarship? And is MLA not an “establishment”?

Bangladesh emerged as a free nation but still she has not achieved intellectual independence. We still have so many “standards”, but unfortunately none of these are homegrown. We have accustomed ourselves into using the word “discourse” without knowing that discourse, as defined by Foucault, refers to “ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and relations between them. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the “nature” of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern” (Weedon).

It is an unnatural thing to talk about ourselves mimicking the voice of others. It becomes a destructive thing when we borrow both the tongue and the tact, and at one point forget about ourselves altogether, forget our originality. This freeing our research practices from “standard” formats/methodology is not a mere academic act, rather it has tremendous cultural significance. Unless we can become wholly ourselves, unless we can truly declare an independence from all sorts of hegemonizing foreign “structures”, we are bound to end up trapped by a colonizing power forever, as a slavish nation, extending our hands for help from others and taking pride in an imitated “sophistication” and “superiority”.

The writer is a faculty of English, Varendra University

E-mail- [email protected]

The post-colonial fever

Diaspora writers are often criticised by postcolonial and cultural critics for trying to enter the western market of publication

After achieving the status of a post-modern intellectual group in ways not known to all, Bangladeshi English academia surely has grown the habit of announcing itself as postcolonial now, with little interest in the post-war Bangladesh and its literature. To many, postcolonialism is simply Indian (and sometimes African) post-independence reality and response. In the Universities, among the researchers who have some experience in the field of Cultural Studies that made its way into higher studies here in Bangladesh not more than twenty years ago, postcolonialism has undoubtedly become a popular discourse. It is supposed to add a serious flavour to the discussions of English academic elites, in formal or informal symposiums. What does postcolonialism really mean in Bangladesh? Have we yet succeeded in making it one of our own discourses, or is it still just an abstraction in our mind of a supposedly prestigious, and often emotion-evoking topic? First of all, postcolonial-ism is not one of our own argots. A Bangladeshi, for the contemporary trends in this particular field, will not be able to understand the dialect and the dialectic of this discourse only from its rigid theoretical point of view that hails, ironically, from foreign lands with neocolonial interests. If we really need to be postcolonial, then we must cultivate the habit of being postcolonial in every aspect. There are academicians, researchers here in Bangladesh who think we need to carry out researches in English so the world might know our thoughts and ideas, our stance and strength. And then there are some who, like Kenyan writer Thiongo, manage to be resilient and try to resist all sorts of western temptation. But there is a concern bigger than that. There is something more threatening than language, the frustrating fact of whose impurity has long occupied the minds of cultural critics (the likes of Derrida) in such a way that it has thus managed to hoodwink the poindexters into ignoring the more subtle, yet the more obvious germs of colonisation- the grammar of manipulation, the format of reformation, and the structure that obliterates originality. It is said the colonisers language is permanently tainted and to write in it involves a crucial acquiescence in colonial structures (Peter Barry). What happens when we lose the linguistic concerns with a kind of strange indifference, and directly, with full understanding and defense, adheres to the structures themselves? Does that not make us subservient? Can subversive criticality that sees all, attempts to thwart all colonial plans, and deconstructs the colonial structures, not see the fundamental problem with our still sticking to foreign formats to carry out our own researches, about our own reality? We have long depended on cultural/intellectual piracy and we are very quick to adopt, adapt and adept. We have pirated our social and political systems from the West. We have pirated fashion/style from the Bollywood. We have pirated our religion from the Middle-East. And we have pirated even the physical foundation of knowledge, our one chance to be original- the research methodology. The popular formats to be followed in a research are- The Modern Language Association of America, popularly known as MLA; American Psychological Association, popularly known as APA, and The Chicago Manual of Style, popularly known as CMS or CMOS. If I may derail, for once, from the serious track and temperament of my argument, then a research that does not even remotely concern postcolonialism may very well stick to an internationally accepted standard. But is it not utterly ironical that a postcolonial study should adhere to a foreign format that does not even make sense with all its complex and unnecessary details? Diaspora writers are often criticized by postcolonial and cultural critics for trying to enter the western market of publication. What, following a foreign research methodology, then is, other than trying the same thing only in a sophisticated way? Because all the researchers, academicians and even the readers know the purpose of abstracts, footnotes, work citations, bibliographies and often, keywords. The acknowledgements are validating academic supports that strengthen the argument and take it to an acceptable position. They show that a researcher is informed. This may sound very unprofessional, even childish to some ears, but is it really necessary to put the last name first and the first name last? What if one places the name of the book before the name of the author? What if one randomizes? Does it really matter if the 8th edition of the MLA Handbook, published by Modern Language Association, has kept or omitted the city of publication from bibliography or not? How do these formats help the catalogue? Which catalogue are we talking about? Which library sanctions prestige? Which journals determine scholarship? And is MLA not an establishment? Bangladesh emerged as a free nation but still she has not achieved intellectual independence. We still have so many standards, but unfortunately none of these are homegrown. We have accustomed ourselves into using the word discourse without knowing that discourse, as defined by Foucault, refers to ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and relations between them. Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They constitute the nature of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern (Weedon). It is an unnatural thing to talk about ourselves mimicking the voice of others. It becomes a destructive thing when we borrow both the tongue and the tact, and at one point forget about ourselves altogether, forget our originality. This freeing our research practices from standard formats/methodology is not a mere academic act, rather it has tremendous cultural significance. Unless we can become wholly ourselves, unless we can truly declare an independence from all sorts of hegemonizing foreign structures, we are bound to end up trapped by a colonizing power forever, as a slavish nation, extending our hands for help from others and taking pride in an imitated sophistication and superiority. The writer is a faculty of English, Varendra University E-mail- [email protected]