Ismail S. Talib's "The Language of Postcolonial Literatures" (Book Note)

 

The Language of Postcolonial Literatures seeks to introduce newcomers to the field of postcolonial literary studies, addressing the complex issues surrounding the role of language in postcolonial contexts. However, it becomes evident that the book focuses exclusively on Anglophone literatures, tracing the trajectory of English from its marginalization in eleventh-century England to its establishment as a global lingua franca under British and American imperialism. The narrative suggests that English overcomes resistance from writers in subjugated societies, eventually taking root in postcolonial settings.

 

The book's Anglocentric approach is not unique to the author, as it aligns with a broader tendency in postcolonial studies to emphasize the British empire and the English language in narrativizing the history and culture of imperialized societies. This tendency has historical roots, such as the emergence of "Commonwealth literature" in the 1940s, which initially focused on literatures from white settler colonies but later expanded to include works from decolonized African and Asian nations. The term "Commonwealth literature" was later replaced with terms like "New Literatures in English" and "postcolonial literatures," with a particular focus on Anglophone writings.

 

The book aligns with the theoretical framework presented in The Empire Writes Back (1989) by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, which distinguishes between standard British English as a metropolitan language and "english" (in lowercase) as its postcolonial mutation. This framework establishes a binary opposition between colonizer and colonized while homogenizing the diverse ways in which English has transformed in different postcolonial settings.

 

Despite the Anglocentric perspective, the author is not solely responsible for this trend in postcolonial studies. The field itself has been criticized for sustaining cultural imperialism by prioritizing English-language literature and reinforcing colonialist hierarchies of languages. The author, Ismail Talib, appears to accept the theoretical framework of The Empire Writes Back without extensively addressing its controversial aspects, perpetuating the Anglocentric nature of postcolonial studies.

 

In contrast, postcolonial studies should ideally encompass literatures in all languages used by writers from imperialized societies, rejecting colonial hierarchies of languages. Emily Apter contends that postcolonial studies should align with the foundational disposition of Comparative Literature, inheriting its historical legacy without replicating colonialist frameworks. The critique underscores the need for a more inclusive and diverse approach to postcolonial literary studies that transcends the limitations of an Anglocentric perspective.

 

 

The ambivalence evident in the book's use of both "literatures" and "literature" reflects an ongoing struggle between embracing diversity and multilingualism on one hand and succumbing to homogenizing Anglocentrism on the other. Although Talib acknowledges Aijaz Ahmed's critique of the "Anglocentric tendency" and "theoretical imperialism" in postcolonial studies, the subsequent design of the book appears to dismiss these concerns.

 

The section on "Binary Oppositions" further highlights the book's internal contradictions. While acknowledging the potential positive aspects of binary categorizations, the author fails to adequately address the legitimate charges of Anglocentrism and Eurocentrism raised earlier. The book attempts to defend the use of binary oppositions as a conceptual approach, despite their association with colonial and racial discourses. This unresolved tension, coupled with the inconsistent acknowledgment of critiques, constitutes significant flaws in the book's approach.

 

Despite these issues, the book serves as a comprehensive overview of the challenges related to the use of English in postcolonial literatures. Covering various aspects such as the status of English in different regions, debates over its usage, and stylistic transformations, the book contributes valuable insights. The chapter on the stylistic transformations of English is particularly noteworthy, challenging the polarization of "English" and "english" proposed by Ashcroft et al.

 

As a textbook intended for students entering the field of postcolonial studies, the book unfortunately promotes an Anglocentric perspective and upholds a polarized, Eurocentric worldview that echoes imperialist justifications. However, it does hold merit as a resource within the established boundaries of Anglophone postcolonial studies. While it may not be suitable for introductory courses due to its problematic theoretical framework, individual chapters can prove useful for scholars and teachers seeking concise overviews of specific aspects related to language in Anglophone literatures. Notwithstanding significant omissions, such as neglecting Black Vernacular Englishes in the UK, the Caribbean, and the US, the book offers well-researched insights into the designated scope of Anglophone postcolonial studies.