More scholars recovering from poststructuralism and postmodernism, then and now

There is this issue of Differences I have also held onto, from 1991 or year 1 of Reeducation; I marked an essay by Neil Lazarus and another by Gayatri Spivak to come back to when my presence of mind returned. I might keep it, as it is not in JSTOR, or not, so as not to fetishize it and since much by both writers is easily available.

I see also that Lazarus has a 2011 book, the Postcolonial Unconscious, that I would surely like to read. Tim Brennan:

Neil Lazarus’s The Postcolonial Unconscious proposes a new literary comparatism based on a sociology of representational types rather than on modernist literary form. In this highly successful counter-text, he blasts postcolonial theory for its unacknowledged reliance on tropes and terms very alien or indifferent to the actual corpus of non-western literature. Heralding a still vibrant peripheral modernism, Lazarus pores over an extraordinarily wide range of non-western novels and poems to map an actually existing Third World aesthetic, whose political dimensions re-orient our understanding of what the postcolonial actually is.

In “Doubting the New World Order: Marxism, Realism and the Clais of Postmodernist Social Theory” (Differences 3.3 [1991]: 94-139), Lazarus discusses Norris’ What’s Wrong With Postmodernism?, which is a book I liked in its day. Norris said that postmodernist thought, although presenting itself as subversive, was not; as I said at the time and others did, it substituted politics.

He also discusses Spivak, and agrees with her that Deleuze and many more ignore the international division of labor (which is part of why the subaltern cannot speak); for all its self-proclaimed radicalism, much work from this quarter is “the tesult ofan interested desire to conserve the subject of the West, or the West as Subject.” (Spivak 271)

…and I am keeping this journal issue, and Lazarus is always convinces me of how Marxian I really am and also that this is all right; he claims Marxism or Marxianism can absorb criticisms of it/does not have to be thrown out.

There is also a piece by Spivak here, that criticizes metropolitan cultural studies and discusses subaltern studies. I like Spivak more and more. And this journal issue is very beautiful, but I am going to donate it further even though it is not in JSTOR because these authors have other texts and I have too many books.

n+1 is another interesting journal. It has interesting fiction I do not have time to read now, but it is interesting. It has a review of a book form Verso, published last year: Vivek Chibber, Postcolonial theory and the specter of capital. The author takes subaltern studies to task, says the reviewer, and what is said augments my interest in it, so far.

This entry was posted in Colonialisms, Modernities, Postmodernism. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s