Bery and Murray's "Comparing Postcolonial Literatures:Dislocations" (Book Note)

 

In an era marked by sharp criticism directed at the term "postcolonial" and the associated scholarship, one cannot help but question the enthusiastic embrace of it by editors of collections, as observed in the reviewed work, and by authors of monographs and essays. This eagerness might be attributed, as some have suggested, to the perception that anything labeled as "postcolonial" has market appeal. Additionally, the term's versatile use allows for the juxtaposition of analyses of literatures from settler colonies like Australia with those from Africa or India. More recently, Ireland, Scotland, Latin America, and the US have also been presented as candidates for inclusion in postcolonial discourse. Consequently, some scholars within the realm of postcolonial studies have expressed a desire to abandon the term altogether, given that its critical utility has been rendered virtually incoherent.

 

Frequently employed to denote a temporal condition, for which terms like "post-independence" or "negotiated independence" (as articulated by Gayatri Spivak) or "neocolonialism" might be more precise, postcolonial, for some of its prominent theorists, more aptly defines an epistemological stance and critical practice. This stance signifies knowledge and strategies of representation that emerge "as an aftermath," or "after being worked over by colonialism." These postcolonial perspectives are deeply entwined with the technologies of colonial knowledge and representational practices, actively seeking to undo the structures of colonialism while simultaneously inhabiting them, as explained by Gyan Prakash in his work on Subaltern Studies as Postcolonial Criticism

Comparing Postcolonial Literatures: Dislocations exemplifies several of the tendencies outlined previously. Originating from a conference on postcolonial literatures at the University of North London, the collection endeavors to address the lack of attention to linguistic boundaries, the situation of the British Isles, non-British colonial formations, and cross-cultural influences predating modern colonialism. Casting a wide net, the collection encompasses essays on Ireland (4), Scotland (1), the Indian subcontinent (1), Latin America (1), Australia (1), the anglophone and francophone Caribbean (4), Africa (1), and the US (3). The essays, drawing from diverse geographical and historical contexts, frequently engage with the term "postcolonial" in the senses described earlier. The deployment of the term often centers on Homi Bhabha's definition of hybridity, signifying ambivalence in colonial discourse, displaced by the colonized to signal their creative energies and agency.

 

While addressing concerns such as migrancy, diaspora, and internal exile, with a broader focus on border-crossings and cross-cultural phenomena, most essays in the collection primarily offer readings of individual works. Only two essays, by Patricia Murray and Nara Araujo, approach something akin to comparative analysis. Despite the editors' assertion regarding the necessity of a comparative study of linguistic and cultural formations resulting from various colonialisms, the collection falls short of delivering on this promise. Although it claims to embody dislocation both as a subject matter and formal strategy within the essays, presenting itself as distinct from the current constitution of postcolonial studies, it largely repeats the critical maneuvers used to categorize a growing body of work as postcolonial. As a result, the promise of genuine dislocation in the collection remains largely unfulfilled.