Laura Chrisman's "Postcolonial Contraventions: Cultural Readings of Race, Imperialism and Transnationalism" (Book Note)

 

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.