Some recognition of structural politics at last

One of the issues brought forward by both Dirlik and Ahmad is that formulations of discourse and their relationship with power. I find this idea to be of extreme importance. Beginning with Ahmad, he points out how there is an inherent problem with tracing the discourse of Orientalism all the way back to Greek drama. Dirlik, in both his pieces points out the same issue of how any discussion of culture has to be situated in the context of Political economy which gives birth to it. In many ways, the issue of separating Eurocentrism from other 'centrisms' is crucial. The point that Dirlik hammers home is how the power of Eurocentrism is fundamentally related to the configurations of structural power which perpetuate it. In many ways, this is something that has been missing in almost all texts of postcolonial variety that we've read up till now (Spivak would of course be an exception). Additionally, considering how Dirlik conceptualizes Modern Capitalism as not specifically situated in a geographical location, one wonders how it is even possible to conceptualize a 'postfoundational' history. But more to the point, as I pointed out earlier, what is the utility of such an endeavor given that these 'foundational' categories such as the onslaught of Capitalism are as much relevant to us today as ever before. One of the factors, I do think are important, are the positionality of these authors. The economic deprivation caused by multi-national organizations in places like Pakistan and India are of course of little concern, personally for tenured (almost) professors sitting in Columbia. For them, the issue of 'hybridity' and its impact on culture is of course, more important. This, in many ways, is how I see the 'postcolonial' intellectual fashioning the 'postcolonial' world in his own image. 

In another sense, this discussion needs to take center stage for reasons for self reflexivity. As Dirlik points out, the EuroAmerican 'ethos' now (and by extension of modern global capitalism), instead of creating divisions, seeks to incorporate difference within the hegemonic discourse. As Dirlik points out; " there is a parallel between the ascendancy in cultural criticism of the idea of postcoloniality and an emergent consciousness of global capitalism in the 1980s ". In addition to this, the fundamental point that writing of difference and cultural integration is a key concern for global capitalism now. Given also that most 'postcolonial' critiques are aimed at including the marginalized into the 'hegemonic', one does wonder about the radical-ness of their endeavor. Going back to Dirlik, the need to historicize postcolonial literature is paramount. Does it, on any level, propagate the dominant ideology? According to Dirlik, the problem runs far deeper (one could contest this); "The complicity of postcolonial in hegemony lies in postcolonialism's diversion of attention from contemporary problems of social, political, and cultural domination, and in its obfuscation of its own relationship to what is but a condition of its emergence, that is, to a global capitalism that, however fragmented in appearance, serves as the structuring principle of global relations". Even if one does contest the last point, what is certain is the idea that in discussion of culture, issues of economic exploitation, political domination do take a side role, almost as if they are not fundamentally related to issues of cultural domination. The two way link between culture and political economy, and its absence within 'Postcolonial' literature (at least in so far as we've read it) seems almost criminal.

I also think it is crucial to seriously engage with the question of what lies outside the 'EuroAmerican' given especially that most of the 'postcolonial' authors are deeply enmeshed in the EuroAmerican tradition. In this sense, I find the idea of 'contact zones' significant in this regard. In many ways, the issue of difference is used time and again, as Dirlik points out, to 'make space within the EuroAmerican academy for the postcolonial intellectual (paraphrased of course)'. Given this, I really wonder about the utility of thinking about difference. In many ways, the fundamental issue is of what is being argued and for whom and consequently, what is being ignored. Right of the bat, what is being ignored are structural issues of capital accumulation and economic exploitation which, as I said earlier, seems almost criminal. By arguing against something like foundational categories, are we not completely ignoring the structural power dynamics?

Finally, all of this is fundamentally related to politics. As Dirlik points out, 'Culturalism conceals inequalities in the realm of economy by focusing too much on issues of culture and ‘subjectivities’. What does cultural do politics of solidarity on a global scale? There has to be something foundational, some foundational mode of oppression against which global politics of liberation are directed against. In that sense, the readings for this week are a sigh of relief because they bring back the issues of culture within a real political scenario. In addition to this, I think there is some value in the comparison Dirlik draws between Huntington and postcolonial literature (loved the part about Huntington) in the sense that it almost posits a difference so impenetrable that nothing can be said about solidarity. Bearing also in mind that the claim almost always has been about liberation, then one wonders why the fundamental issue of structural politics has been so missing in postcolonial literature.