Postcolonialism
The term ‘postcolonialism’ can be written in two ways: with and without hyphen. With hyphen (post-colonialism) it indicates the temporal marker: something which happened after colonization. Without hyphen (postcolonialism) it stands for the oppositional attitude to the colonization. In that sense postcolonialism starts not after but with the onset of colonization itself and continues till colonization and its effects are operative, long after the actual political subjugation is over. Generally anti-colonial struggle in the colonies concentrates too much on the political front at the expense of socio-psychological aspects of the colonization. It is assumed that once the political sovereignty is achieved, all the adverse effects of colonization would vanish like waving a magic band. The need to break away from the painful past and make a new beginning is so urgent that it is accompanied with equally strong ‘will-to-forget’ the memories of colonial subordination and will to disown the burden of past. However, historically speaking political liberation is not the cut-off point in the continuous flow of time. The post-independence amnesia cannot completely wipe out the residual traces of subordination. The ‘celebrated moment of arrival – charged with the rhetoric of independence and the creative euphoria of self-invention’ is accompanied with the ‘anxieties and fears of failure which attend the need to satisfy the historical burden of expectation.’ Thus, in reality, this historical amnesia ‘is informed by a mistaken belief in the immateriality and dispensability of the past. In Lyotard’s judgment, ‘this rupture is in fact a way of forgetting or repressing the past that is to say, repeating it and not surpassing it.’ (Lyotard 1992, p 90)’3
Like colonization even decolonization is a lengthy process consisting of both political activism and intellectual resistance. The first step towards decolonization is obviously developing an ideological resistance to colonization. It is not enough to experience the oppression, it is necessary to theorize it – to identify its source (subjugation of native people through brute force and then its rationalization), effects (degradation of the colonized people’s self, creation of trauma and inferiority complex in their mind, falsification of their history and calcification of their culture) and ways of resistance (rejection or appropriation). Then comes the actual political resistance which is marked by mass struggle both violent and non-violent. The acquisition of political sovereignty may seem to be the end of this process, but in reality, it is the beginning of a more complex process known as decolonizing the mind. It involves overcoming the historical amnesia mentioned earlier, and repossessing one’s self, history and culture. The last but the most difficult stage involves remapping the society, culture and the psychological territory.
To truly overcome colonialism, it is necessary to re/member colonial past. The colonial discourse creates a ‘Manichean allegory’ (Abdul Jan Mohammad’s term) or binary opposition between the colonizer and the colonized. The colonizer as ‘self’, is depicted as the epitome of all noble qualities and the colonized as the ‘other’ is depicted as filthy, brute savage. The colonizer is defined as good, the colonized as bad; the colonizer as intelligent, the colonized as dumb; the colonizer as civilized, the colonized as barbaric; the colonizer as rich, the colonized as poor. In short, the colonized does not have any other autonomous status apart from the distorted mirror image of the colonizer. This ‘Manichean allegory’ has great persuasive power as the colonized in need of positive self-image, takes up the position of colonizer and disowns his/her own colonized self. Known as ‘double consciousness’, this self-division turns a colonized into his/her own enemy. If s/he rejects everything associated with the colonizer, s/he may be trapped into the self-created marginalization. On the other hand, if s/he whole heartedly internalizes the values of colonizer, s/he becomes inauthentic; mere shadow of the colonizer. In either case, the colonized is the loser. The solution to this deadlock is subversion – to subvert the context in which the colonizer defines value and to appropriate those values to serve one’s own purpose rather than the colonizer’s. For example, in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, colonizer Prospero teaches the native Caliban his language so that he can command his slave to perform his chores. However, Caliban claims, “You taught me language; and my profit on’t is, I know how to curse. The red plague rid you for learning me your language!” [Act 1, Scene2] It is necessary for the colonized not to be seduced by the colonial discourse which valorizes colonizer’s values and calls upon the colonized to embrace them as a means of their upliftment. George Lamming says, “The colonizing agent may begin with suggestions for improvement, and improvement is always welcome, for it’s another word for change, with a promise of change for the batter as you see better. It may start as a suggestion. Then the suggestion fails and the colonized are alive with complaint. But the colonizing agent has already chosen the future of this enterprise, the end of which is to get colonized securely into his power. This power will be used toward an end that may have nothing to do with the landscape where they both experience this encounter.”4 When the colonized looks back upon the colonial past, s/he encounters two discourses: ‘the seductive narrative of power and alongside that the counter-narrative of the colonized – politely but firmly declining the come-on of colonialism. It is important to remember both – to remember in other words, that postcoloniality derives its genealogy from both narratives.’5 It is not enough to oppose the colonizer’s domination, it is extremely important to regain ‘creative autonomy’ from the colonizer. Focusing on the future and striving for the creativity rather than authenticity (in other words hybridity) can show the path towards liberty and prosperity.
The Postcolonial theorist have explored these issues of colonization and decolonization from various angles – starting with their meanings, assumptions, critical methods till its limitations. In essence, they have exposed to both the colonizer and ex-colonized the falsity or validity of their assumptions. The pioneers of Post-colonialism like Edward Said, Franz Fanon, Homi Bhabha among others, have concerned themselves with the social and cultural effect of colonization. They have regarded the way in which the West paved its passage to the orient and the rest of the world as based on unconfounded truths. They have asserted in their discourses that no culture is better or worse than other culture and consequently they have nullified the logic of the colonialists. In their readings of colonial and post-colonial literature and other forms of art, post-colonial critics have relied heavily on other available literary theories. They have manipulated Marxism, new historicism, Psychoanalysis, and deconstruction to serve their purposes. Now one by one we will go through their views and ideas.
