Review of Kevin Hart's Postmodernism: A Beginner’s Guide

by Ayesha Mirza

When I first picked up Postmodernism: A beginner’s guide, I expected it to be an easy read that I could finish within one sitting. I can’t really say whether it was the leanness of this book, or the title, or the claim of the author that this book will be no more useful to me after once I have been through it; that lead me into this illusion. But illusion it was; it took me over two weeks of reading to finish it. Overflowing with numberless concepts essential to postmodernism, it baffles me as to how this phantom of a book could deal with so many ideas without giving the feeling of a haphazardly crammed storeroom. Far from it; all the ideas are placed, well, not in an apple-pie order, but they do give semblance of an order. What makes this guide somewhat easier to understand are the examples from the most tangible spheres of life. At the end of every chapter is an exhaustive list of further reading suggestions so that the reader can countercheck the author’s claims as well as satiate his quest for more knowledge. The index too is quite handy, and if the reader gets stuck in any of the many concepts he’s been reading, the glossary of terms is there to help him out. As for the claim of the author I mentioned earlier, this book is definitely useful and a reader is more than likely to refer to it more than just once after the first read. The reason being, that although it is a beginner’s guide, yet it is a lot more than just an A to Z rendition of postmodern concepts; the author has his own opinion and that shows through the entire book. And we can keep this opinion in high esteem particularly as a theologian’s outlook towards postmodernism. Indeed this book is more precious in academic arena not because it is a useful beginners guide, but because it provides us with an insight into the theological questions pertaining to postmodern philosophy. What is more, Hart doesn’t simply state; he triggers the inquisitive pulse of his readers, so much so that as soon as a reader has put the book down he is already looking for more on postmodern philosophy.

Divided into seven chapters, this book can be broadly separated into three parts and the first part is more of an orientation towards postmodernism. Starting off in an engaging way, Hart warns his readers (or listeners?) against thinking that postmodernism is something that can be defined or whose central features can be distinguished. He makes this point explicit by making us go through several lectures on postmodernism by various speakers. The first lecture we find ourselves listening to is by a French guide since it is generally thought that postmodernism originated in France. And indeed, he makes us believe that; by first introducing us to Lyotard, moving over to Lacan, and later on to Derrida. Right at the point when we have gained confidence of being acquainted with postmodernism as an attitude of suspicion towards the modern, with a new definition of the ‘Self’ based on Lacan’s philosophy; Derrida’s theses regarding deconstruction of language; and Foucault’s ideas regarding history, subject and power, we are hurled into the hands of another guide, this time from America. The new guide asserts that postmodernism is synonymous with popular culture. This description is followed by three other guides who trace the relationship of postmodernism with modernism, world politics, economics, and theology. In short, this initial bombardment of conflicting views regarding a singular term is enough to baffle a reader into throwing the book aside and concluding that postmodernism is nothing but a hotchpotch of unrelated ideas. Nonetheless, Hart’s involving and assuring style forces us to read on. He hurriedly introduces us to the definitions of postmodernism, postmodernity and post-structuralism; the rejection of humanism and realism; and the cultural as well as political implications of postmodernism. On the whole, Hart successfully culminates this chapter with an attempt at organizing the muddle created by guides at the opening of this book, and he successfully makes us understand that the meaning of postmodernism varies from situation to situation.

Digging beneath the surface of postmodernism, Hart brings to our focus three attitudes that can more or less be located in all postmodernists: anti-essentialism, anti-realism and anti-foundationalism. Anti-essentialism, with its many facets, is likely to be defined in many ways. Hart gives two of its definitions and shows how the neglect of ideational or referential theories of meanings together with taking being human as historically and culturally conditioned affects our interpretation of art. Anti-realism on the other hand is introduced to us with its two categories; truth anti-realism and metaphysical anti-realism. While talking about anti-foundationalism, however, he traces back the history of man’s eagerness to find solid grounds on which the world rests. Anti-foundationalism’s epistemological and ontological formulations are also touched upon. After warning his readers against concluding that all postmodernists carry all the three abovementioned attitudes and pointing towards the various degrees of the versions of these theories; Hart points towards the paradox within the postmodern philosophy. While postmodernism is a negation of essentialism, realism and foundationalism; it is also positive towards, for example, alterity and difference. What is more, it tells us that there are no firm grounds, no absolute truth; while offering itself as a general truth. Following this, we are lead to Nietzsche’s contention; God is dead and we get to know that he did not abolish God altogether; he simply denied the possibility of an absolute being and hence no one God’s view of the world. This discussion is particularly helpful for readers who find this idea, together with nihilism, confusing. While reading this book, we can decipher Hart’s contention that the two ideas are compatible with religion. Yet, despite the clarity of definition that he provides us, the very idea that we need to revalue values seems to be in conflict with religion since every religion proposes certain values that are essential to it. At this point, Hart also distracts his readers by providing them with a detailed critique of the writing style of Nietzsche. In fact, he makes such detours at a few other occasions in the succeeding topics as well. The reader finds himself hurled into an additional task of linking the surrounding discussions with the critique on style. Furthermore, the idea of perspectivism might lead a reader into thinking as to how acceptable certain interpretations of specific texts are to postmodernists. With all their passion for alterity, do the interpretations of holy texts enticing people into killing other races find an acceptance among postmodernist thinkers as just another point of view? Furthermore, similarities between analytical and postmodern philosophies have also been discussed in this section. However, while Hart makes every effort to describe various concepts, the lack of such description for analytical philosophy gives his readers hard time trying to understand these similarities. Yet, the evasion of such a description can be a result of the writer’s taking the knowledge of readers regarding basic analytical and continental philosophy for granted. Winding up his argument here, Hart moves on to a discussion regarding postmodern experience.

He elucidates the postmodern experience by answering two questions. The first question is whether there are certain experiences peculiar to postmodern living? It is plausible, yet we are warned not to imply that there is a certain spirit of age that clearly demarcates its boundaries with other ages. The second question; ‘does postmodernism offer fresh understandings of experience?’ is answered through the eyes of Deleuze whose answer to this question is in affirmative. Experience in modern times was characterized by an interaction between subject and object. With the decentering of subject by postmodernists, the possibility of experience - as it was understood in the modern times - diminishes. This difference is made explicit through elaborate examples with reference to Olson’s and Blanchot’s theories regarding the experience of poetry and art. The purely philosophical debate has been made fathomable to a novice in the subject through tangible examples. Despite this clarity, it baffles the readers without a philosophical background to think that how theoretical definitions of experience can be equaled to any experience itself.  For instance, didn’t the ‘real’ nightingale withdraw when Keats began his quest for the real? This leaves us with the implication that experience is defined differently today than it was defined in the modern age, but experience itself remains the same. The same holds true for everyday experience; considering Blanchot’s position that ‘no one has ever had lived experience of the everyday, for our lives are spent in not experiencing it’. However, the fact remains; today’s poets consciously compose poetry that reflects their postmodern outlook. Leaving theory aside, however, the things that we experience today are different from the things that our grandparents experienced. Hart elaborates upon the impact of simulacra on human perception; we see world and its contents as images. While we cannot deny the importance of images in the postmodern world, we cannot ignore the importance of portraits, sketches and travel documents in the earlier days either. Didn’t the people then live in the images created by those pictures and travelogues; and didn’t they visit places to see what the earlier travelers had seen? And conversely, doesn’t there remain any possibility today, of visiting a place for its ‘aura’? Similar questions arise in minds while reading an argument regarding the end of history. No matter how it is defined, fact remains that humans are alive, and so is their experience. Even if humans cease to be and the world remains, there still remains ‘time’ itself. Since history is temporal, can we possibly fix it within the presence or absence of conflict? Later on, Hart elucidates the difference between ‘fragmentary’ and ‘fragment’ asserting that unlike fragment, fragmentary is not complete in itself. Instead, it is like collage work that is chaotic, like a broken mirror which was once whole. This leads us towards an elaborate discussion regarding triune, ‘I’ and ‘other’; in short, theology.

The rest of the book deals with theological implications of postmodernism. Considering Bible as the deepest impact on Europe, Hart elaborates how this Book of books is in perfect unison with postmodern philosophy. Since it is a ‘Book of books’, and not a unified whole, Bible is fragmented. Furthermore, Bible doesn’t offer any Grand narrative; it consists of various tales instead which are open to numberless interpretations. Yet here Hart doesn’t make mention of the greatest of over-arching narratives of Bible: God, Son and Spirit. Even if we take the stories in Bible as fragmented fables for the guidance of man; does the ‘postmodern Bible’ seem to be ready to let go of God as the centre? Hart also rejects the idea of transcendence relegated to this book. However, what interests a reader not well-versed with Christian theology and a little background knowledge of postmodernism is the elaboration of Derrida’s ideas regarding canon. Through this book we get to know that Derrida was not against creating canon, but, rather, sought to keep the question of formation of canon alive. Hence Bible’s status of a canon is also in agreement with postmodernism – thus the term ‘postmodern Bible’. Nevertheless, Hart makes explicit his effort at describing the compatibility of Bible with postmodernism; how strongly can Bible respond to the questions raised towards it? This is an approach that can be directed to other holy scriptures as well. Indeed, in today’s world for a scripture to be kept alive its followers need to shed their holier-than-thou attitude and be more responsive to the questions raised at their holy books. Later on, in the same chapter, Hart elucidates Blanchot’s and Levinas’  theories of ethics that posit that the subject has an infinite duty towards the ‘other’, so much so that when the ‘other’ calls, in Derrida’s words, the only response of the subject is ‘Here I am’. The ‘other’ in return holds the same duty towards the subject, since every individual is so related to the ‘other’. Blanchot calls it ‘double disymmetry’ and ‘relation without relation’. The ethical responsibility of subject towards ‘other’ precedes religion. This is what Derrida refers to as ‘religion without religion’. The author goes on to elaborate how God and Messiah are also the ‘other’ to whom we pray, and who’s decent to this world we await. This ‘other’ is not the metaphysical, scriptural image that has been portrayed in Abrahamic religions. It is instead, an indefinable, unforeseeable ‘other’. This theory of God as an unforeseeable ‘other’ is in return helpful in avoidance of idolatry. Hart further elaborates Derrida’s theses and highlights not just the possibility, but also the need for ‘deconstruction’ of Christianity for the revival of faith.  His position regarding triune is clear. Drawing upon Derrida’s Diffe`rence as quasi-transcendental, the author clarifies as to how pure prayer is possible only when it is addressed to the diff`erence or Khora or trace as a response to an absolute ‘Other’, instead of a response to scriptural, metaphysical God. Differentiating between positive religion with the traditional scriptural and metaphysical God, and negative theology embedded in Derrida’s ‘religion without religion’, Hart warns us against the consequences of ‘positive religion’ towards humanity since it lies at the roots of fundamentalism. In my humble opinion, seeing a ‘God’ in every ‘other’ and hence in every subject is an idea not new to many religions, for instance in Muslim theology. However, there are varying interpretations to this idea and it will make an interesting study as to how these religions may respond to Blanchot, Levinas and Derrida’s position, and contribute in maintaining global peace.

Furthermore, playing with the thin line that differentiates ethics from religion, Hart draws on akedah, the story of Abraham’s binding his son Isaac, as seen by Keirkegard and Derrida. By making this extraordinary event look like an ordinary event, Hart makes us understand that according to the philosophies of these philosophers we as humans have an ethical responsibility towards every ‘other’ be it God or His creation. This ethical responsibility is the precondition for religion. However in order to avoid the misconception that addressing every ‘other’ is the same as addressing God, the author juxtaposes the philosophies of Derrida and Balthasar in order to prove how God is absolutely singular while all humans can identify with all other human and non-human creations, except for Christ, on account of every ‘other’ being a creation of God. Thus God and His creations cannot be responded to in the same manner. This discussion serves to smooth out the bafflement that the idea of seeing every ‘other’ as God, if taken too literally, may bring to the minds of readers.

In the same chapter while talking about ‘Postmodern Religion’, he draws a line between religion in postmodern times and postmodern religion. While the preceding discussion regarding openness of Christianity towards deconstruction and differ`ence forms the essence of ‘postmodern religion’, he defines religion in postmodern times as the status of religion in the lives of people in postmodern times, where there lies a paradox between a declining number of church goers, and a vehement emergence and assertion of fundamentalism. While dealing with the sensitive and crucial issue of fundamentalism, he makes a clear distinction between Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. Furthermore, while tracing the roots of fundamentalism in the world of ‘relativism and anxiety, of cultural nihilism and irony’, he warns against the most dangerous of combinations; ‘millennialism, dogmatism, and access to military might’. By including the ‘partisans of political correctness’ under the umbrella of fundamentalists, the author implicitly points towards the damage that these fundamentalists have done to this world and are likely to do in the future. Another important aspect of religion in the postmodern times is ‘religious syncretism’- the combination of two or more belief systems and practices. The impact of this ‘mix and match’ approach towards religion is that various religions today are struggling to retain their original identities. Although very little space is given to these two aspects of postmodern times, we see by the end of the chapter that in talking about positive religion and negative religion Hart in effect is finding answer to today’s most troublesome question; fundamentalism.

All the above concepts converge towards one centre; “The Gift: a Debate”. After an elaborate discussion of postmodernism as a tension with or rupture from modern thought in the shape of for example, post-secularism and post-liberal theology, the modern orientation of religion in ethics as opposed to the postmodern orientation towards the love of God, and in particular Scotist idea of God as a concept, as opposed to Balthasar’s belief in transcendence of God, the author leads us towards the debate between Marion and Milbank. Both of these postmodern intellectuals are influenced by Balthasar, are ‘thinkers of the gift’, and seek to redefine modern subject. Marion embarked upon Husserel’s structure of consciousness which stated that ‘all consciousness is consciousness of something’ and that experiences are not arbitrary. In addition to this, he rethought Husserel’s phenomenological reduction. He, while accepting that our relation to objects leads back to our consciousness, adds that ‘nothing can show itself unless it first gives itself’. He calls it the ‘self-giving of givenness’. The first relation leads us towards marion’s idea that we can experience the ‘holy’ but we cannot experience God. Therefore, God cannot be revealed to us as the one who gives. The same idea applies on revelation as well. This leads us to the possibility of God and Revelation. As for the subject, Marion claims that there is no giver and thus the gift is pure. Thus ‘I’ is possible only after becoming a gifted. Yet this gifted appears only in responding to the call of ‘I am here’. However, Derrida and Milbank differ on this point. While Derrida believes that a gift cannot be given, Milbank’s ‘postmodern critical Augustinianism’ suggests that the reciprocal gift giving is not only an important social practice but also has a theological dimension to it. All through this chapter we can see Hart siding with Marion’s position while severely criticizing Milbank’s theology. However, the purpose of culminating the book on this debate is to elaborate that the idea that mankind’s redemption lies not in valuing the exchange value of the gift. Instead, there is a possibility of prosperity of mankind in responding to the excess that has been given to us. He also mentions various modes through which this response can be made, for instance through art or ethical action.

In short, Postmodernism: A Beginner’s Guide culminates at a didactic effort to make its readers understand the value of what is given to us. He does this through an elaborate discussion of Christian philosophy. Even though readers from other philosophical orientation might not be able to identify with many of the concepts of this book, and some concepts might be out of their grasp, yet they can take the message of peace that lies at the undercurrent of this book. Nonetheless, postmodernism as a thoroughly western movement deeply influenced by Christian thought and theology seems much more understandable after reading this handy guide, which, incidentally, is not much of a guide.

Citation: 

MLA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Review of Kevin Hart's Postmodernism: A Beginner's Guide". Literary Theory in Practice, November 10, 2011. Web. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/11/postmodernism-beginners-guide.html>. 

APA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Review of Kevin Hart's Postmodernism: ABeginner's Guide". http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/. 10 Nov. 2011. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/11/postmodernism-beginners-guide.html>

Nationhood, or the lack thereof, in Postcolonial Fiction

by Ayesha Mirza

Q. In 2015, lobbyists from across the Pakistani diaspora invite you to write a manifesto on their behalf. What does it declare?

A. It declares nations are illusions constructed to perpetuate discrimination. Passports are the new apartheid. Let's open borders and open minds. Subtitle: Humans are Pakistanis.

Thus maintained Mohsin Hamid during an interview with The Daily Dawn. A contemporary Pakistani author, his views are way different from those of the first wave Postcolonial authors. The post World War II era is marked with a conglomeration of heterogeneous groups under a variety of banners throughout the colonized world. Thus Pan-Africanism fought against colonial suppressers in the name of nationhood of the entire Africa. On the other hand, Muslims of the Indian sub-continent coined a term ‘Muslim Nationhood’ which not only gave a new meaning to the word ‘nation’, but also created a new ‘nation state’ that claimed to provide refuge to a Muslim populace from British oppression, and prospective Indian aggression. The word ‘nation’ thus became rampant in the wake of anti-colonial sentiments. The idea of nationhood, thus, is deeply ingrained in the postcolonial writings, be it a vehement assertion of nationhood, a rejection of it, or its overpowering presence in the form of total absence. Hence, while Achebe and Ngugi wrote narratives based on resistance and nationalist movements, the texts of Khashwant Singh, Suleri, and Saadawi question the idea of nationhood, and Mohsin Hamid out rightly denounces it in favour of globalization. This essay seeks to explore the way issues of nationhood have been raised, criticized or evaded by various authors.

One of the strongest representations of nationhood can be located in Ngugi’s A Grain of Wheat. Located in the context of Uhuru celebration, this novel at once depicts the hopes as well as the fears of a newly born nation on the Independence Day. The symbolic character of Kihika represents the dreamer who imagines a nation. The character of Mugo stands for the person who becomes aware of the starkness of colonial project only after Thompson spits in his face. His becoming a cherished hero despite being a traitor symbolizes the myths that lie at the base of a nation. The power relationship between Lt. Koina and General R depicts the fact that despite their fighting free of the British rule, the Kenyan nation will continue to have a subaltern class who is dominated by a colonizer. But this time the colonizer would be the native bourgeoisie. Karanja is a mimic man who is “heavy with the sense of imminent betrayal” as the white man prepares for his departure from Kenya. His assault on the allegorical character of Mumbi and the resultant child signify that the new-born nation will encompass both; the freedom fighters as well as the collaborators in the colonial project. The child is ill at the Day of Independence. The new-born nation too is not free of ill. Yet the prospective reunion of Mumbi and Gikonyo, and Gikonyo conceiving of a woman “big with child” symbolizes hope and potential of Kenya. Ngugi, thus, is critical of the nationalist project. However, he doesn’t reject it. Instead, his narrative accepts the independence with all its goodness and evil. He deploys various techniques to assert this identity. For instance, his narrative is sketched in the setting of both, rural and urban Kenya. The emphasis on location and locality along with a depiction of local ways of life are ways to assert one’s national identity. Thus Ngugi is critical of the tall claims of its leaders while being acutely aware of the far from perfect future of postcolonial Kenya. In short, trauma, hope and pride contribute in the making of A Grain of Wheat.

Similarly, Chinua Achebe in his Things Fall Apart makes excessive use of local locations, traditions, names and nomenclature in an attempt to define his nation through rejection of colonial past by retrieving a pre-colonial past. The protagonist, Okonkwo, is essentially nostalgic of that past which was lost to the colonial masters. The resistance he offers at the colonizer’s efforts to colonize him is symbolic of the African resistance movements. However, the strong differences between the clans represent the idea that as long as people are divided into tribes a nation cannot be born.

Buchi Emecheta, on the other hand, writes from the standpoint of a domestic woman. Nnu Ego’s life is too engulfed in the worries of home and hearth that just like all the women of her class she is oblivious of their nation’s exploitation by its colonial masters. However, she laments the changes that the white man has brought about in the society. She first resents them, and then readily adapts to survive in the colonial setting. Unlike the male writers from Africa, Emecheta presents an Africa that cannot be a nation without its woman playing her part. Woman is at one and the same time the central figure in nation building, and an element that doesn’t allow the making of a nation into a unified whole. Thus, while Nnu Ego meticulously brings her children up with a hope that they live with her; her skirmishes with her neighbor symbolize the differences and fights between various tribes and clans of Africa that keep it from becoming a unified nation.               

While African authors on the whole accept nationhood with all its odds, writers from the subcontinent criticize the idea of nation vehemently. Whether it is the bloodshed at the time of partition of India that makes them critical of national life, or the post-partition corruption; their stance is clear. They find nationhood more of a process of subalternization of minorities by the ruling bourgeoisie, and less af a means to liberate the common man. Khushwant Singh in his Train to Pakistan creates an imaginary border village Manomajra to highlight the rupture and turmoil that the enactment of two-nation theory brought about within the society. In displaying the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh groups living in harmony in a single setting Singh projects the shallowness of the idea of nationhood itself. Just through one cartographical change on the pages of policymakers the communal unity was slaughtered and split in two. The common man is least enthusiastic, and yet the most affected by the dawn of nationhood. Hence, Juggat Singh surrenders his life while saving another refugee train from turning into a ghost train. Iqbal Singh, the social worker, lands in jail because of his suspicious name, and the Muslims of Manomajra risk their lives to seek abode in a new country.

Mohsin Hamid criticizes nationhood from the socialist standpoint. He conveys the wide class division that keeps Pakistan from becoming a nation through a stark incident. A child gets crushed by Aurangzeb’s four-wheeler. But Aurangzeb, a rich man’s son, doesn’t go to jail. Instead, the only witness of the accident, Daru- a middle-class jobless banker- bears the brunt of the situation, faces a trial, and gets capital punishment. Hamid thus highlights the impenetrable segregation of the society that makes the dreams of founding fathers to bind the Pakistanis into one ‘Muslim Nation’ crumble. He goes on to thrash the cartography that had gone awry. Mumtaz Kashmiri, as the name suggests, is not only a reenactment of the queen for whom the celebrated Taj Mahal was erected. It signifies the territory of Kashmir that is yet to decide whether she wants to be called a Pakistani or an Indian. The resultant feud between the two allegorical “brothers” tells us how bloodthirsty and indiscriminate in killing is the quest for nationhood. The quote in the beginning of this essay categorically states his preference for globalization as opposed to passport bearing people divided into various nationalities, discriminating as well as discriminated against.

Sara Suleri in her Meatless Days goes a step further by thrashing her father for his obsession with the ‘Muslim Nationhood’ and at the same time creating a subaltern class right inside his home. Pips; by colonizing a white wife in the effort to maintain his relationship with the white man intact, and later, not allowing his daughters to have their will; symbolizes the two-facedness of the middle-class bourgeoisie that replaced the colonizing masters.  A hybrid Indian and voracious consumer of British culture, he was thoroughly enthralled by the hybrid personality of the Quaid and yet he failed to allow his household to be a nation. Ironically, he was ‘the lone Pakistani correspondent in Britain- “Pakistani” before Pakistan’. Thus befell on him the duty of defending an imagination that became a reality in 1947. Suleri is quick to point out that the Fall of Decca was disheveling for Papa not because of bloodshed and displacements, he mourned the death of Two-Nation Theory. Suleri also maintains that he was an eater of history. Just like the colonizing Brits, he too ate up history of the people of Pakistan in order to bring to life the idea of ‘nation’.  However, Sara Suleri too doesn’t feel the need to retrieve the pre-colonial history in order to establish her national identity since that cannot fit into the post-colonial context. She simply questions the idea of nationhood, and the Independence Movement.

Concisely, the post- World War II era witnessed the birth of a number of big and small nations. The authors hailing from these countries display an assortment of feelings regarding this slicing of the world. Hope and fear, fulfillment and disappointment, acceptance and rejection; all go hand in hand in the post-colonial Discourse. Furthermore, various authors use various techniques in their efforts to assert, question or reject the idea of nationhood. Moreover, ‘Nationhood’ is essentially a human construct which various leaders and authors imagined and represented in accordance with their respective settings. The post-colonial theory unravels the variety of modes used to fit their ulterior purposes.

Citation: MLA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Nationhood, or the Lack Thereof, in Postcolonial Fiction". Literary Theory in Practice, October 21, 2011. Web. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/nationhood-or-lack-thereof-in.html>.
APA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Nationhood, or the Lack Thereof, in Postcolonial Fiction". http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/. 21 Oct. 2011. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/nationhood-or-lack-thereof-in.html>

Gender Perspectives on History: A Comparative Analysis of Postcolonial Narratives

by Ayesha Mirza

Retrieving history by postcolonial authors is, in essence, an attempt to rebut the histories of their regions as presented by colonial masters; and to assert their own identity as an independent whole. Thus postcolonial history is either a rendition of a lost pre-colonial history, or reflection of the colonialist’s adventures, assaults and exploits of their territory by colonial master. By exposing the colonialists’ clandestine motives and all the bruises they gave the conquered peoples, their cultures, traditions, religions, histories and land, the postcolonial authors assert their right and ability to be masters of their own regions. The retrieval of pre-colonial pasts is a means to prove that the native was capable of running his empire over thousands of years, and he can do so in the future as well. Thus retrieval of history is a means of decolonizing. However, while writing history, the focal points vary from author to author. Furthermore, the history written by female writers is glaringly different from the history written by male writers. Thereby, while Achebe gives a nostalgic account of his clan before the British colonizers tampered with it, Buchi Emecheta unveils the deterioration that took place in the household of a common woman due to that assault. While Ahmad Ali’s concern is the Delhi of yore, Sara Suleri busies herself in drawing parallels between the colonial history and the history of her home.

The foremost aspect of difference between histories in male and female postcolonial narratives is the choice of political or domestic domain. While female writers are more concerned with the domestic sphere of life, male writers often write from the political standpoint. Thus Nnu Ego of Joys of Motherhood realizes; “she had been trying to be traditional in a modern urban setting. It was because she wanted a woman of Ibuza in a town like Lagos that she lost her child. This time she was going to play it according to the new rules” (81). The history narrated in the entire novel is the history of a woman, a doubly colonized person, striving to cope with male oppression in a new setting where the man subjugating her is himself at the whims of his colonial master. Similarly, Nawal Al-Saadawi in narrating the life history of Firdous exposes the various means whereby man oppresses, uses, abuses and crushes a woman. The chronology pictures a man in the roles of father, uncle, husband, lover and pimp; and brings to light the several acts that leave none of the men innocent. “'I am saying that you are criminals, all of you: the fathers, the uncles, the husbands, the pimps, the lawyers, the doctors, the journalists, and all men of all professions” (110). Likewise, Sara Suleri narrates the history of her own life, of the people associated with her, of her own household. In her Welsh mother we see not just a silenced woman, but a woman who is a collaborator in her being colonized by her husband. Iffat’s elopement is not just an instant of her deep love for a man and her father’s Pakistan; it is a history of the subalternized household of her father, and the revolt thereof. Similarly, Sara’s decision to avoid marriage to her uncle’s son, and later, her flying away from Pakistan is reflection of a long history of double standards that she has endured in her father’s household. Men on the other hand are interested in the political domain. Ngugi places his narrative, A Grain of Wheat, in the setting of Independence Celebrations. He concerns himself with the struggles of Kihika, the mystery of this legend’s betrayal into death, the concerns of common man regarding the future of Kenya. He is keen to expose the various faces that form the new Kenya- the freedom fighters and the collaborators of white man and the common man whose sole concern is to rise higher up on the pedestal of social status, and yet is ruined by the ravages of colonization. Similarly, Achebe’s Things Fall Apart is a historical account of Okonkwo’s struggle to assert and preserve his identity, his motherland’s sanctity, his customs and traditions in the backdrop of colonial project. His life history ending in suicide at the humiliation of being a part of a clan that was not ready to fight for its honour is in essence an attempt at retrieving a pre-colonial tribal history. Likewise, Mohsin Hamid tells the story of postcolonial Pakistan whose people are far from liberated. The cruel and impenetrable class divide, the blind eye that the social elite turns towards the misery of socially deprived, and the life history of the banker Daru’s attempts at liquefying the social boundaries; all put in the backdrop of the 1998 Pak-India Nuclear exploits portrays the history of a post-colonial nation. In short, while most of the women writers trace the history of their double colonization, men display the history of people in the political arena.

Hence the history narrated by men is the history of colonial oppression, of colonizer’s assaults on the native’s land, property, honor, customs and traditions. Conversely, women portray the history of man’s oppressive rule over woman. Thus while Sara Suleri does talk of the political changes that take place on the landscape of Pakistan, it evidently concerns her because of her father’s assertiveness. The novel is more about the father’s colonization of his wife, and children and less about the post-colonial Pakistan. On the other hand, Mohsin Hamid clearly tells the history of the bourgeoisie indifference towards the lower stratum of society.

Another major difference between the history circumscribed by women and men is the role of women as active workers or passive recipients. Saadwi’s Firdous lives a life of endless struggles in the quest of a better life. Her running away from her husband’s house, from the asylum of Bayoumi, from Sharifa’s patronizing, and finally her breaking free of all men by stabbing Marzouk; each of her acts shows an active defiance of chauvinistic laws. Similarly, Nnu Ego’s struggles for the sustainence of her family, in bringing her kids up, in obliging her man, in keeping the traditions of Ibo tribes alive are a history of a strong woman who suffers for a cause; the cause to be a respectable woman. The factor that she discovers that all her struggles were nothing but attempts to uphold man’s rules is an awakening a woman could not have made without going through all the pains she went through. In Meatless Days Suleri portrays Dadi and Iffat as strong and active women. The incident of Iffat’s chasing the vagabonds who teased Sara is one instant of the extent to which a woman can go to save the honor of people she loves. Her step away from her father’s home is another instance of an active assertion of will. Similarly, Dadi’s ending up slaughtering a goat defying her son’s laws is another instance of a strong willed, resilient woman who actively renounces any impositions by others and puts her foot firmly to protect her beliefs. Similarly, Ayah in The Ice-Candy Man by Bapsi Sidhwa is the resilient character who despite her hardships and double-colonisation, plays a redemptive role in the wounded society. Sidwa’s portrayal of women emphasizes that the task of nation building cannot take place without the active participation of women. Thus women can be seen working actively in the pre- and post-colonial arena. Conversely, male representations of woman in history are passive. Juggat Singh’s Nooran in Train to Pakistan is a passive recipient of his caresses. The only act she performs is that of a weak resistance against his advances. On the other hand, Juggut Singh risks his life in order to save the train carrying his beloved from becoming a ghost train. Through out the novel, Juggut is seen as either acting, or stoically enduring the hardships that befall his lot, for example as a suspect in jail. Ngugi’s rendition of women, however, is not so passive. His women play a vital role in the liberation of Kenya. However, those women are subordinate to the men who are actively fighting against colonization. Hence when Njiri joins Kihika in the forest, it is not because of her ideals regarding liberation; she does so in Kihika’s love. Although Mumbi is the actor when accepting and rejecting Gikonyo and Karanja respectively, her her ability to attract men towards her is the reason for her being strong. Achebe, on the other hand, pictures more passive women. Ojiugo, despite her fascination for Okonkwo, was not allowed to marry him until he became a respectable man. In her married life, she lived on the whims of her husband, got beaten up by him, and her only respite remained with her adorable daughter. In short, the portrayal of women by men writers is that of a passive recipient of favors or abuses of their male counterparts. On the other hand, women authors in their narratives give a rendition of a history of women actively playing their part in society.

Another aspect that distinguishes male writers from female writers is their rendition of women as silent. The history that women portray shows females as not only actively participating in the society, but also making their point of view heard. The loudest example of this portrayal is by Saadawi who pens down the voice of Firdous. Firdous is that person who has the courage to speak out whatever has been tabooed by the male-dominant society. This courage she believes is the reason for the men to be afraid of her. Similarly, Dadi in Suleri’s Meatless Days is the loudest character who makes her presence felt in a colonized household. Thus, her demand for tea cannot be ignored; neither can her stance regarding religious festivities. Conversely, the women in male-authored texts are silent. Okonkwo’s wives silently endure the beatings he gives them. Hukam Chand’s ‘girl’ silently creeps by her side when he wants to steal away from the worries of life. Ahmad Ali in Twilight in Delhi portrays Bilqeece as a woman silently accepting her husband’s favors, and silently enduring his rudeness. In short, women portray women as alive, who know their mind and speak that out. Men’s portrayal of women is that of a silent picture not playing any part in history other than appeasing their owners.

The history written by women is essentially a history of self-realization. Firdous in Woman at Point Zero after her life long struggles ends up finding the answer to an enigmatic question: “I knew why they were so afraid of me. I was the only woman who had torn the mask away, and exposed the face of their ugly reality.” This awareness of her unconquerable power over men, however, dawned on her only after she had seen the ugliest of ugly faces of men. History teaches her a lesson; “I want nothing, I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. Therefore I am free. For during life it is our wants, our hopes, our fears that enslave us.” Thus the history of Firsdous’s life culminates at a newfound knowledge of the self. Nnu Ego in Joys of Motherhood also goes through all the hardships of life, and her life’s history makes her discover the hollowness of her acceptance of man’s standards set for women. Thus by the end of the narrative she evokes God; “God, when will you create a woman who will be fulfilled in herself, a full human being, not anybody’s appendage?” (186). On the other hand, women in Achebe’s narrative are never seen thinking beyond their household chores and mundane troubles. Nooran in Train to Pakistan follows the opinion of Juggut’s mother and leaves for Pakistan. Hence she is portrayed as a selfish woman whose only concern is her own life as opposed to Juggut Singh who gives his life for Nooran. Ngugi and Mohsin Hamid, though, give more space to women. The women they portray; Mumbi and Mumtaz respectively, are more self-conscious. These characters also symbolize the dawn of self-consciousness upon a nation after the silent suffering. However, such instances of self-conscious women in male-authored narratives are to be found only in the later postcolonial novels. The history of women portrayed by men always remains silent and mindless, like a juvenile who needs men to protect her and think for her.

In short, the history that postcolonial men write in their narratives is different from that pictured by women. Men are more concerned with the political sphere of life as opposed to women’s preoccupation with the domestic domain. Women are silent, passive and non-reflexive in men’s stories. They do not play any part, or very little part, in the nationalist or resistance movements. They are relegated to home life, and are peripheral to man’s existence. Conversely, women are treated as essential to the survival of the entire society by the female authors. The women in these novels are active and vocal. Their histories are histories of patriarchal oppression, double colonization, pain and agony, and the resulting self-consciousness. 

Citation:

APA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Gender Perspectives on History: A Comparative Analysis of Postcolonial Narratives". Literary Theory in Practice, October 10, 2011. Web. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/gender-perspectives-on-history.html>.

MLA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Gender Perspectives on History: A Comparative Analysis of Postcolonial Narratives". http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/. 10 Oct. 2011. Date of Access. http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/gender-perspectives-on-history.html

“The Other Side of Death” by Marquez: A Postmodern Study

By Ayesha Mirza

Postmodernism is both a rejection and a continuation of Modernism. This philosophy is a conglomeration of various theses posited by philosophers, including Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault, to name a few. Hence, presenting a thorough list of postmodern ideas is nearly impossible. The aim of this essay is hence to offer a comprehensive, yet by no means exhaustive, the study of the short story “The Other Side of Death” by the celebrated Columbian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

One factor that marks postmodern literary theory is the questioning and rejection of an over-arching meta-narrative. This short story by Marquez dexterously rejects the biblical meta-narrative of heaven and hell, worldly life, and after-life. He obliterates the boundaries between the mundane and heavenly by juxtaposing the experiences of life and death. Furthermore, he makes the stark reality of death no more than a subtle transition from this earthly abode to the otherworld:

“Resigned, he listened to the drop, thick, heavy, exact, as it dripped in the other world, in the mistakes and absurd world of rational creatures.”

Thus for Marquez’s audience, death seems to be no more than an act of the decomposition of the body and the liquid within seeping into the other world. There is no talk of heaven or hell, of reward and punishment. In addition to this, the distinction between body and soul virtually diminishes. The intangible becomes tangible, and the real becomes liquid. The mass gives way to the matter inside. Yet the reader cannot determine whether he’s talking about the soul or his mundane existence.

This narrative, in essence, is a picture of a self-reflexive and self-conscious moment, a moment of “an awareness of splitting in two.” Paradoxically, at this moment, the protagonist also realizes “that the separation of the two bodies in space was just appearance, while in reality, the two of them had a single, total nature.” This fragmentation of the self and disappearance of the subject are central themes of the postmodern narrative. The protagonist feels his entire body liquidate and turn into nothing. All the senses are obliterated; he can no longer smell formaldehyde nor hear the cricket’s sound. However, just as postmodernism doesn’t lament the idea of fragmentation and dehumanizing of a subject, Marquez celebrates the ‘absurd world of rational creatures’. His hypothesis that it was possible “that the buried brother would remain incorruptible while rottenness would invade the living one” gives the protagonist a new satisfaction and eagerness to seep into the otherworld.

The narrative is made even more complex through the usage of multiple voices. This fragmentation of voices gives the readers an acute consciousness of the absence of a single point of view. The sudden and ever-shifting pattern of voices, from third person narrative to the first person and then back to the third person again, leaves room for various interpretations. Thus when we are told, “They were traveling in a train- I remember it now- I’ve had this dream frequently…” the reader has to stop and think about who the ‘they’ and ‘I’ of this story are. In this way, the much-touted idea of a single conscious self and existence through the meta-narratives is out rightly rejected.

Furthermore, the bricolage of various disconnected and bizarre elements within the dream, and its deep connection to realism, leads to another aspect of postmodern fiction. Marquez’s fiction is inextricably connected with Magic Realism. He represents the realism of ordinary events by dexterously interweaving them with crisp fantastic, dream-like elements. Hence “The Other Side of Death” takes place in the territory between sleep and wakefulness. The thoughts and dreams of the protagonist and the actual situation get intermingled. So, the reader cannot distinguish which one is a dream and which depicts reality. Thus the smell of formaldehyde, the corpse that had been dying in the other room, and the death of his brother; all commingle with his dream. And by the end of the story, his thought regarding the drop of water filling up the whole room in an hour or in thousands of years ends up in the drop dripping into the other world. Here the reader cannot comprehend whether the drop is the tangible liquid falling from his ceiling or the fluid in his body that has seeped through his skin for him to enter the otherworld.

Thus, the interpretation of the text remains enigmatic. It is open to many interpretations, and its meanings can never be exhausted. The bricolage of multiple images, the questionable narrator, the various voices, and the fragmentation of being; all contribute towards making this postmodern narrative virtually untranslatable.

Citation:

APA:    Mirza, Ayesha. '“The Other Side of Death" by Marquez: A Postmodern Study'. Literary Theory in Practice, October 7, 2011.Web. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/other-side-of-death-by-marquez.html>.

MLA: Mirza, Ayesha. "'The Other Side of Death' by Marquez: A Postmodern Study. http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/. 7 Oct. 2011. Date of Access. http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/other-side-of-death-by-marquez.html

Engendering the Colonized: A Study of African and Asian Postcolonial Fiction

by Ayesha Mirza

Postcolonial theorists often define colonialism as a binary in which colonialist powers signify a male figure which discovers, yearns for, explores, oppresses and abuses the colonized territory. Hence, the occupied territory turns into a female figure, or a bride who depends on her male counterpart, fears his advances and yet, yields passively to them; or in some cases shows revulsion ending in submission, endures his atrocious behavior and yet wants him to continue his hold over her female existence. This dichotomy of weak and strong, master and slave, oppressor and oppressed, active and passive, possessor and possessed, west and east, male and female is implicitly or explicitly expressed in a bulk of postcolonial literatures be it in the form of passive males succumbing to the advances of western invasions, or men trying to reclaim their masculinity through nationalist and resistance movements. This essay is circumscribed to the study of Asian and African postcolonial novels in order to locate the gendered nature of the colonial project.

Achebe’s simple narrative Things Fall Apart explicitly mourns the lost masculinity of the Ibo men. A recurrent binary of dominant male, and female “other” runs parallel to the strong white man, and weak native. The natives at one point realize that just like a man’s passion for a woman, ‘the white man’s fetish had unbelievable power” (106). In front of this fetish, the Ibo men soon start loosing their will to act, to fight. This passivity is seen with contempt and a pang of nostalgia by Okonkwo as he recalls the days when “men were men” (141). When finally “effeminate men clucking like old hen” refuse to own their lives and become the possession of white man; the protagonist breaks free of the humiliating position by taking his own life (146). Thus we see Okonkwo’s character as the foil against which the inactive Ibo men have been placed to show their impotency in the backdrop of colonial project. One noteworthy aspect of this novel is the inherent Igbo binary that manhood is to be celebrated and femininity is inferior. Thus to be respectful one has to be masculine; brave, active, passionate and strong. When a nation loses these masculine traits, it ceases to be respectful. And hence the strongest Igbo tribe known for its fearless men is reduced to the state of femininity when oppressed by a colonizing power.

Ngugi Wa Thiong’o in his novel A Grain of Wheat highlights the same loss when he renders the character of Karanja, the mimic man, in front of Margery, a white woman. Margery acknowledges that she “felt a sensual power at the fear and discomfiture she inflicted on Karanja” (37). Thus the native is not only reduced to the status of a woman, but even worse; he is inferior to a white woman who is herself a subaltern in her society. Karanja accepts the white man’s presence with “resentful alacrity” (36); while Kihika believes; “what we now want is action” (14). Karanja, like a faithful wife or a ‘damsel in distress’, fears Mr Thompson abandoning him. “Thompson had saved him from shame. Thompson. And he was going. He strolled back to his room, heavy with the sense of imminent betrayal” (158). Kihika, on the other hand, makes the policemen at Mahee, a symbol of colonial power, resist weakly at his assault (16). Thus the binary of two men; one docile and the other active; highlights the African lapse into femininity and the struggle to regain the lost masculinity. The nationalist and resistance movements are hence efforts at reclaiming the respectable, masculine status of a nation. Finally, the imagery of a woman “big with child” (247) that Gikonyo intends to carve for Mumbi symbolizes an Africa full of opportunities, prospects and progress after breaking free from colonial oppression.

The women writers of Africa, doubly colonized in their homelands, talk mostly of the male oppression on women. However, their domestic concerns cannot remain detached from their colonial setting. Emecheta is one such instance, who in Joys of Motherhood depicts Nnu Ego lamenting the lost masculinity of her husband. She refers to him as a man with ‘a belly like a pregnant cow’ (42) on one occasion, symbolizing that the African nation was being exploited by the west just as a man uses a cow for his gains. Similarly, her analogizing Nnaife with ‘a woman mourning her husband’ (42) symbolizes the loss of Africa’s maleness. Nnaife’s act of washing white woman’s clothes is also emblematic of African nation’s lost masculinity. What women used to do for men, men are doing for women. Similarly, Dr. Meers’ calling Nnaife a ‘baboon’, and Nnaife’s prospective response; “We work for them and they pay for us. His calling me baboon won’t make me one” brings forth the fact that just like a woman doesn’t know in how many ways a man manipulates her, a colonized native also remains unaware of his exploitation. We can discern here a clear reversal of gender roles as the entire nation becomes the slave of west. Running with this is a paradox that Emecheta along with other woman authors create. They show women in active roles, fighting along with their male counterparts a struggle of sustenance, or as in the case of Nnu Ego, fighting with the ills of life alone. They reject the male allegation of their being passive. Hence the industrious Nnu Ego sacrificing, enduring and earning in the love of her children is a strong rebuttal to the male allegation that a woman is passive. Thus despite all the demeaning allusions to effeminate men, Emecheta asserts that these images are a male construct that women have accepted. The reality is very much the opposite; woman is not passive and weak.

It is not only African literature that foregrounds the gender representations of colonial domination and nationalist resistance. Asian nationalist and postcolonial authors also uncover the “Orientalist images of the subcontinent veiled as an Eastern bride” (Suleri 76).  Ahmed Ali’s Twilight in Delhi in his depiction of mimic man like Asghar, and men like Mir Nihal who take respite in pigeon-flying and courtesans, shows the inability of native to fight the western assaults. The inactive male lamenting his lost pride, "All this, and more, had not been forgotten by Mir Nihal and his wife and the others; they all burned with rage and impotent anger, for they could do nothing” (142); is analogous to the misery of Mumbi of A Grain of Wheat. Asghar’s wonderment and disdain for Budho is symbolic of west’s “prejudice against and curiosity of” the east (Theo d'. Haen, Patricia Krüs 153). Thus in Edward Said’s words, the Orient “had been since antiquity a place of romance” for the west. By and by, Delhi has been referred to as a city “built hundreds of years ago, fought for, died for, coveted and desired, built, destroyed and rebuilt, for five and six and seven times, mourned and sung, raped and conquered, yet whole and alive, lies indifferent in the arms of sleep”. This holds true not only for Delhi, the entire Indian nation has been subject to many destructions and restructurings. It has always been passive in its encounters with multiple civilizations and has moulded herself in accordance with the cultures of her masters.

Mohsin Hamid in his Moth Smoke treats Kashmir as Ahmad Ali treats Delhi. But this time it is not a woman being conquered by a man; it is a woman being pursued and fought for by two men- India and Pakistan. Hamid in his interview with Newsweek explains what the character of Mumtaz Kashmiri symbolizes; her “surname is "Kashmiri" because the feuding "brothers" fight over her just as India and Pakistan do over Kashmir”. Moreover, she absorbs all the influences of western world during her stay in America. When she breaks away from west, the struggle of the two men to own her begins as a simulacrum of Kashmir which remains under the western influence for years and when the western authority leaves begins the conflict between two “brothers”.

While all the writers we have analyzed so far treat the colonial project as the conquest of man over a woman; Sara Suleri is apt to catch the inferior status rendered to women in this enterprise. She appositely denies this binary, and contends that the colonial project was in essence a love of a man for a man. She analyses various Anglo-Indian male and female writers and posits that “The woman seems to be at a better vantage point to assess how much the colonial encounter depends upon a disembodied homoeroticism rather than on the traditional metaphor of ravishment and possession”. She further goes on to say in the light of Forster-Aziz relationship in A Passage to India that “The Anglo-Indian woman writer evinces a powerful understanding of the imperial dynamic as a dialogue between competing male anxieties” (77). If we generalize Suleri’s claim in order to apply her thesis on her own Meatless Days, we see a strong depiction of papa as a person in love with the colonialist. His stay in Britain, and marriage with a white woman as opposed to the white man living in India and mystified by the native woman depicts a far closer proximity between west and east - proximity that is often obliterated by the rendition of native and intruder in heterosexual binarism. However, it is noteworthy that in homoerotism both men lose their masculinity as a consequence of the absence of ‘other’. Furthermore, in the colonial encounter, the native yields in to the western power, fear and charm. In this way the native becomes more ‘feminine’ than the colonizer.

Simplistically put, the colonialist, nationalist and postcolonialist discourse views colonization as a gendered activity. However, these theoreticians and authors cannot go far without the ‘otherness’ of the other. If a woman ceases to be relegated to the periphery and the centrality of man becomes obsolete; as alluded to in Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (‘in some tribes a man's children belong to his wife and her family'); the entire parallelism between colonial project and gender will collapse. Although theorists like Suleri have made efforts to challenge this dichotomy, in a patriarchal society the idea of homoerotism is too deeply woven with the view of lost masculinity to evade the question of femininity. In short, as long as woman remains at the periphery she will remain a symbol of slave nations.

Cite this Article: 

APA: Mirza, Ayesha. . "Engendering the Colonized: A Study of African and Asian Postcolonial Fiction". 2011, October 6. Web. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/engendering-colonized-study-of-african.html>.

MLA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Engendering the Colonized: A Study of African and Asian Postcolonial Fiction." http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/. 6 Oct. 2011. Date of Access. http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/engendering-colonized-study-of-african.html