Neil Lazarus' "Nationalism and Cultural Practice in the Postcolonial World" (Book Note)

 

"Nationalism and Cultural Practice in the Postcolonial World" serves as a self-consciously Marxist endeavor within the realm of postcolonial studies, seeking to offer a historical materialist alternative to the prevalent idealist and dehistoricizing approaches dominating the field. This critical stance, according to Lazarus, responds to what he perceives as the high cost incurred by postcolonial scholarship due to its premature dismissal of systematic theory. Ahmad's "In Theory" emerges as a direct contender, yet Lazarus distinguishes his work by aligning, akin to Fredric Jameson, with a commitment to acknowledging the genuine insights of postcolonial criticism while demonstrating the superior conceptual breadth of Marxism.

 

The first chapter, titled "Modernity, Globalization, and the ‘West,’" vigorously defends a fundamental Marxist principle—the categorical primacy of capitalism as the enduring and systemic force shaping modernity, globalization, and the West. Lazarus contends that theories giving precedence to these terms over capitalism succumb to various forms of idealism and tend to overestimate present restructurings, leading to sensationalistic or exaggerated philosophical conclusions. The crux of the book lies in the second chapter, "Disavowing Decolonization: Nationalism, Intellectuals, and the Question of Representation in Postcolonial Theory." Here, a significant struggle unfolds over Fanon's legacy, pitting tendentious poststructuralist appropriations by Bhabha against Miller's argument that Fanon's representation of Africans is an ethnocentric imposition akin to colonialism itself. Lazarus critiques Fanon's "intellectualism" while cautiously avoiding a complete dismissal, highlighting the danger of "intellectualist anti-intellectualism" that prematurely rejects all representation, collapsing diverse nationalisms without regard for their ideological distinctions or consequences.

 

Lazarus frequently accuses those advocating readings too subtle for a comprehensive framework like Marxism of "empirical insufficiency." He consistently emphasizes real-world implications and concludes the chapter with an ode to the enduring value of successful decolonization struggles.

 

The Introduction exhibits some rhetorical and strategic shortcomings—raising the question of whether Adorno is the most fitting starting point for this project. The chapter dedicated to cricket and C. L. R. James appears somewhat disjointed, and the final chapter on Afropop lacks the necessary forcefulness to deliver a conclusive impact. Although these concluding chapters offer interesting insights, they fall short of providing a compelling and transformative model for the future of postcolonial studies. The emphatic affirmations of the socialist anti-imperialist tradition, concluding several chapters, do not entirely seem sufficient to dispel or navigate us through the postcolonial uncertainty that gave rise to academic "postcolonialism" in the first place.