This collection of essays by Laura Chrisman spans nearly a
decade, with nine of the included essays having been previously published. The
book also introduces two new chapters, one of which is the introduction, while
the other focuses on the work of Benita Parry, a critic admired by Chrisman.
The book addresses a tendency in postcolonial studies towards ad hominem
writing, which Chrisman finds unproductive. She articulates her intention to
critically evaluate thinkers' ideas, emphasizing underlying assumptions and
reasoning implications, and suggesting alternative conceptualizations of the
issues.
Chrisman's distinctive position lies in her forceful yet
respectful engagement with other critics' thought, her consistent emphasis on
the importance of dialogue, and her commitment to materiality in scholarly
analysis. She challenges what she terms the "aestheticization of
culture" in the work of certain critics, where art is presented as the
primary or only means of social and political transformation. For instance, in
her critique of Sol Plaatje and W.E.B. Du Bois, Chrisman questions the
appropriateness of Afro-American cultural and political paradigms for
understanding African intellectual movements, advocating for a more nuanced
approach that incorporates critical interrogation and dialogue.
Chrisman's essays also delve into the work of other critics,
including David Lloyd and Anne McClintock, examining cultural studies in South
Africa, and exploring the transnational production of Englishness within the anti-apartheid
movement. She showcases her perspicacious reading and meticulous textual
analysis in critiques of Anne McClintock's reading of Haggard in
"Gendering Imperialism" and in her examination of Joseph Conrad's
"Heart of Darkness." However, there are instances where Chrisman's
positions appear quite extreme and potentially simplistic, as she tends to
categorize writers as either entirely satisfactory or entirely flawed.
n the concluding chapter, Laura Chrisman expresses some
hesitation about introducing a negative dimension to the discussion of Benita
Parry's work. She imagines that Parry might prefer a critical evaluation rather
than an unconditionally positive review. However, Chrisman does not seem to
experience a similar hesitation when discussing critics like Anne McClintock or
Anthony Appiah. She argues that African intellectuals like Ntongela Masilela
and Appiah have more nuanced perspectives than she allows, and any limitations
in their work might be a result of Chrisman's interpretation rather than their
actual positions.
Chrisman contends that the insights she identifies in the
writings of Achebe or Parry are not similarly acknowledged in the work of other
critics. She criticizes Paul Gilroy's book, suggesting that its popularity
within academia is not solely due to its merits but implies a certain
gullibility among academics. Chrisman acknowledges flaws in Gilroy's work but
also recognizes its contribution to a more nuanced understanding of
Afro-Diasporic cultural formations. She suggests that Achebe's critique of
cosmopolitics leads to somewhat bleak conclusions about global communication,
emphasizing its potential to reinforce unfreedom for those who lack ownership
of communication structures.
While Chrisman calls for diversification in the field of
postcolonial studies, she also acknowledges the variability in the quality and
purpose of the essays in her collection. She notes some contradictions and less
explored avenues, and she questions the relevance of the chapter on Robert
Young in the context of the book's overall aims. Despite these considerations,
Chrisman's collection offers a valuable contribution to postcolonial studies,
showcasing her unique perspective and making her work accessible to scholars
and students in the field.
No comments:
Post a Comment