Journal #1: The Empire Writes Back
The Empire Writes Back (TWEB) details
post-colonialism by outlining key ideas of post-colonialism, discussing the ways
writers create post-colonial texts, what key ingredients are part of post-colonial
texts, and how to use post-colonial theory while analyzing texts. In the
introduction the ideas of power in relation to language and place are prominent.
As places were colonized, the struggle for power between the colonizers and the
colonized made for an environment of tension that was felt by both those taking
power and those losing power. TEWB notes, “Marginality thus became an
unprecedented source of creative energy” (12). And, so, post colonial texts and
authors began the struggle to find a voice to represent their own unique struggles
after the point of colonization.
Chapter 1, “Cutting the Ground” discusses
the origins of what we recognize today as post-colonial (PC) texts. Authors who
“cut the ground” faced a system that sought to oppress their voices. The key
takeaway from this chapter seems to be about how the choosing of these voices
was done by European/colonizer authorities, through which maintained dominance.
Therefore, writers had to find ways to manipulate this dominating system and
subvert common European/colonizer/dominating genres, themes and techniques to
express themselves – which leads to the topics of Abrogation and Appropriation
from Chapter 2. Abrogation and appropriation are two techniques that are
generally used by post-colonial writers to promote their voice. Abrogation
seems to be a rejection to the English’s power over communication and uses english
(with the little ‘e’) despite the colonial underpinnings. On the other hand,
appropriation is more defiant as it aims to reconstitute language in a way that
reclaims the power, often using English and subverting it or embedding it with
pre-colonial language to reclaim it as one’s own.
The use of appropriation to claim a
spot for post-colonial writers in literary discourse establishes ‘difference’
from Europe, placing these texts firmly into a ‘not-European’ category. This
chapter is the first instance where the topic of binaries is introduced. In
discussion of this unintentional trap of binaries, the difference between oral literature
(‘orature’) and written literature is described as either ‘magical’ (oral) or ‘empirical’
(written). This idea is followed in Chapter 4 as the intersectionality of
post-colonialism is discussed at depth. The key concept pulled from this
chapter is the assertation that the idea of “binaries”, along with the concept
of “the universal”, are Eurocentric ideas that are used to privilege the
already privileged in post-colonial settings. Achebe calls these concepts “narrow,
self-serving parochialism of Europe” (126). Thus, post-colonial theory often
snags itself up by placing itself into a binary like the dominant/colonizer/European
wants them to. This idea is further explored in Chapter 5 where it is noted
that PC identity comes from being “different” than the colonized, and that is
unavoidable once cultures encounter one another and enter in the colonial
discourse. Another key point in Chapter 5 is the description of the
interrelationships between language, truth and power: “Truth is what counts as
true within the system of rules for a particular discourse; power is that which
annexes, determines, and verifies truth. Truth is never outside power, or deprived
of power, the production of truth is a function of power and. . . we cannot
exercise power except through the production of the truth” (165). To me, this
concept is very important here in Chapter 5 because it brings full circle this
struggle for power and the tension that exists in post-colonial literature, as
well as highlights how language as a tool for communication is used to assert
power and, thus, truth – as we see in modern times through news channels that
are more or less biased, and in globalization.
Finally, in chapter 6 the current
situation regarding post-colonialism is marked and described as a struggle with
the meaning of post-colonial. Who is post colonial? To what extent is a location
described as “post-colonial”? Both of these questions are widely held for debate,
though the textbook asserts that post-colonial = post-colonized, meaning that everything
during and after the time of colonization can be and is considered PC. In
addition, the text notes the problem with attempting to “other” texts that are “not
post-colonial enough”: “… but an engagement with all the varied manifestations
of colonial power… the attempt to define the post-colonial by putting barriers
between those who may be called “post-colonial” and the rest contradicts the capacity
of post-colonial theories” (200).
Ultimately, I take two key points away
from The Empire Writes Back. First, language itself is used to control
and oppress, thus the importance of literature in contexts of colonialism, as voices
are projected through various techniques that defy and subvert the powers at
play. Second, the idea of binaries and universalism are ideas that are
inherently European, and these too are ways that those in power maintain their
own power and “other” or in some cases demonize narratives that they don’t deem
worthy. These two ideas mean that post-colonial theory is an important lens to
familiarize yourself with because the language in literature is constantly working
either to support or defy a system that may or may not be working in one’s
favor.
