Darby e Paoloni (RI e pós-colonialismo)

8/10/2019 Darby e Paoloni (RI e ps-colonialismo)

1/14

e once observed that the state of an intellectual discipline,

of a distant nation, may sometimes be read off from its al-

Here we suggest a corollary proposition that the state of a

dging International Relations

and Postcolonialism .

Phillip Darby and.A. J . Paolini*


2/14

. 2

Br idgin g Inte rn at io n al R elations and Postcolonia lism

I ional ones. It is only when the points of contact and the zones of S('I'

a rate interest have been plotted that we can begin to appraise till

con unuing relevance of the old configurations of knowledge and till

claims of the new to be at the cutting edge. The point has a

spcclul

salience in the present context because both international relation

and postcolonialism have been self-referential to an unusual degre

Given the need to situate the two discourses in relation to (':1111

ot her, this paper addresses three areas, which taken together l.uu

seape much of the relevant terrain, First, we review the geneol()~I,

or both discourses with the aim of tracing their present trajecun h

lid bringing out their discursive presuppositions. Second, we eX,1I11

inc certain sites of engagement where the two discourses might 11,111

I>~'('n expected to have intersected, The fact that they have not I ,dl

lo r interrogation. Third, exploring key differences in the appro.u lit

or in

rcrnational

relations and of postcolonialism, we go on to :11f1,1I'

11Ial a dialogue between the two discourses would be mutually 1'1[1

voking and therefore enriching.

Ikfore beginning our analysis proper, there is the prior iSSlI1 I

whether international relations and postcolonialism have sui lil 11I1I

shared reference points to be situated in relation to each 01111I \j

litis stage, they have hardly begun even to eye each other t\('Im~ II1

disciplinary gulf, so we will be examining potential areas 01 1'0111

1l101l:t1ity or conflict rather than connections already made, t-.1[l1

Ihuu IItis, our concerns relate only to a part of each discourse, 1l,llIli I

IIt:1t whi ch bears upon the North-South encounter in eitlt('1 It I I1I

101 \r:t1 or contemporary manifestation. However, qucsi ious :111' '

1'lIll:11ly raised about the relationship between that p


3/14

'1'11('1'('is a I'apidly f,PtlWllIK 1111'1.11111' 1111Ht'lldl I .uul ihr 1I1'I'd III 111'['1

haul ideas about POW('I .uu l Slillt'\tIHHI III Iltl' IIHIII III IC'III1I1I1 I

spectives. Perhaps ('V('1l 11101'('si).\lIilk:1I11 is l lu: 1'1111'1).\1'1111'd III

so-called third debate, whcrclu i


4/14

;\ re-view Wllll('1I 1)1

IU H 7

11) 1111111.1',111)' I ,II'IIIII~M~lIl1l1'lldllH III 1111

changing nature 01 PWI( ()1()III:ilIHIIIIII IIt:II ~IIC'dill'S 11111I~I 11111'1'

fix post in her an Ilyses of' WIil('I'S SII('1t as (~:Iy,1 i :IlId 1\11,11111, hi'

indicates both how recent hc ('III'I'CIH'y 0 POSll'ol()lli:dislll 111,11111l

chameleon character.

The expansion of post colonialism has had murh 10 do with llil ,11

liances it has entered into, particularly with

EUJ )IHrtll

soci,d 1111'111',

Aside from the initial Commonwealth literature/literary ('I'lIlllslIl

phase, we can locate two further overlapping but nevertheless dil'lllllll

movements in postcolonialism. The concern with resistance :\11(11I

covery marks the second image of postcolonialism, and the ('IIf.\;lH'

ment with ideas of ambivalence and hybridity derived 1111111

contemporary social theory characterize the third movement Ihal 11:1

now come to dominate the postcolonial discourse.

Framing the second movement are the works of Third World sclllll

ars such as Albert Memmi, Octavio Mannoni, and especially Fr:1I11

Fanon, who utilized Freudian and other psychoanalytic perspcc: iVI

to focus on the colonizer-colonized relationship and posited the Ill'

cessity of resistance and rejection. In particular, the need to reeOVI'1

precolonial culture, language, and identity in a process of resistant I

to colonization not only influenced radical nationalist movemcur,

but defined the later approach of writers such as Ngugi wa Thionu'u

and the Nigerian critic, Chinweizu. Edward Said, although derivin

some inspiration from Foucault, was clearly influenced by 1111

Fanonian need to subvert dominant Eurocentric characterizations, 1I

should be noted, however, that the call for resistance does not always

go hand in hand with claims of precolonial authenticity-at least 1101

in Said, Although clearly oppositional in his stance toward Wester

imperialism or orientalism, Said in a recent interview rejects notious

of ethnic particularity and a homogeneous return to Islam as realis

tic solutions. Like Bhabha, he instead accepts the migratory qual iI

of experience, 9 Despite the need to distinguish between the call COl

resistance and the need to recover some pure identity, there is a Iin

gering tension in Said's claims about the point of resistance. In

earlier analysis, Said described the revisionist postcolonial effort 10

reclaim histories and cultures from imperialism as entering the vat

ious world discourses on an equal footing, 10 Elsewhere, he argues

that postcolonial writers hear their past within them as urgently

reinterpretable and redeployable experiences in which the formerly

silent native speaks and acts on territory taken back from the coin

\ nialist. n The belief in resistance and recovery, in unproblematically

[restoring or indeed discovering the native voice/identity, marks a dis

1 ' / 1 1 1 1 1 / '

, 1 / I

I/ t , I ,

/ ' , / 1 '/ 1 1 1

1111111'lIdllll) III I'()MII Ill tI11

d

11'111;\11111Mu

klu-t

jl' I'()IIII~ 10 Ildl'lll'lI

ell'III)' ,I~ plI'l'.dl'lll II I I ltl wlIlllIg~ III 1lI,IIIYpOSI('ololll:d ('I liies xurh rlS

II'pl'1I .'-iII'lllOII, 111,11'11illl'll, :lIld l)i:lIl:\ 1\1ydOII, ill which a con-

, 1111wiI

: t

d is IIIsiVI'I \'siSIHI1('\' 10 colonial ist power (Slemon and

1'1111'11)01' r t-rrit -val or rrcai ion o r an independent identity

(I'll ('I'll)


5/14

\'lI1

1 1 / Iil~/II~ / 11 / , , / 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 'M,, illl

'/11

':''''jll,' ;''II~11I

SP,lCt' 01' 111(':ldvI'1 M:ld:II , , ,

i M

III'VI'I' .'lItlll I) 1111illt 1I1I1~ld, III 1111

placably opposiliollal.'h '1'111'1111\)11'1it 01 I oltlld:d diN. 11111C'.u e MII 11

as involved in splitting, (\Ollblillg JlI'o.i('( 11011, IllIlIci. I}': WII,'1

i~

c11

avowed is repeated as SOlllClhiJlg diITt'I'elll,:\ Ilyl>I'id,11I;,'y:Cld SJlI\,c\

argues similarly: I am critical 01' (Ii(' hin a ry ()PPO,~III,,

coloniser/colonised. I try to examine the hctcrogcucity 01' '('(c1olil,ci

power' and to disclose the complicity of the two POleHof Ilia 1OJlJlII.'

tion as it constitutes the disciplinary enclave of the crit iqucof illl)lI

rialism.? Spivak extends her focus to gender and the positlon III

subaltern women. What both Bhabha and Spivak effectively do, vl,

narrative and textual de construction, is to reposition the colold,cI

and postcolonial relationship along less essentialist lines, high I l- \ III

ing a more heterogeneous and syncretic dynamic. This is also I11

It

III

Caribbean postcolonial writing and theorizing which, deploying 1110

idea of creolization in culture and literature, is seen by Ashcrolt

Griffiths, and Tiffen as being the crucible of the most extensive :\1111

challenging postcolonialliterary

theory.?

Postmodernism pervades this third movement of postcoloniallsm

The focus on the particular and the marginal, the heterogenity 01

meaning and narrative, the questioning of Eurocentric positlvlstu

and universalism, the ambiguity toward modernity, the critique Id

Western individualism, and the interest in constructions of self' .uu l

other-all bear the trademarks of recent critical social theory. N I

surprisingly, Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffen argue that these conc('lll~

clearly function as the conditions of the development of postcoln

nial theory in its contemporary form and as the determinants 01

much of its present nature and content.?

These same intellectual accents have also framed much ofthe thlu]

debate in international relations, although their overall effect on tIel

discipline has been much less sweeping. Still, a narrow bridge III

tween postcolonialism and international relations has been COil

structed upon which similar interests in culture, iden r i t v ,

representation, and narrative can traverse. The two movements dl

scribed here can be seen as overlapping and propelled by the sauu

underlying dynamic of resistance, whether it be to specific instance

of colonial power and representation, or to the Eurocentric nature III

scholarship in general. Although it is necessary to keep in mind till

points of difference between the two movements, it is valid to c:l~1

.--/ postcolonialism as the more all-inclusive enterprise. The nub of POMI

colonialism can be seen as oppositional and redemptive. Despite till

refinements of Bhabha and Spivak, there is a conscious privileging III

the Third World and of marginality as proper foci of stud}

1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 'II,,,I'H IIIld , I , / , 1 ' , , , ' 1 / 1 1 /

1 1 ' . 1

I'.-,~t,,)I'IIII.III~III IU'II~~III ' l,illlI II,c' 11I111,t1uu l ('llllllioll:cI high-

1I11l11dill il~ 11111'1op,.1Iill 11III W.'NII'III 1110(\('1cily. WII('III('I'

it

be th

I'hi. d WOlld 11I t'II(,.

ru ul

III wlltl'l ill W~'st(1'1lacademe, or the subal-

11'11101'n.u ivc-vok x- hOWI'VC'1II':lctlll(.'t1an d hybrid it has become-

lill' hupetus is Oil t ln- 1l\


6/14

IH O

II1ilISII/~

1 1 11 1

I IIIIUiIIIIIII'II/U,III.

11 1 1 ' / 1 1 , II I I ,, ,, i, l / l ij , ,,

workil1~s 01 l1ill('l('111111 111111)'lllJII'1 LdINIII,wllll h IItlglll 1,,1\11111lit

rethinking Ihe il1l('I'I1:1tilll1:11polllks ul

t

l: 'I'ltild Will Id 01111,1 II I

nition of the signilic


7/14

I H

1 111tI~ 11 I.~ 1I / / I I / I l 1 ll

l

t'1,j/;'''';1

, ti II ~ ,, / tl l I / I I J i , 1 I

gills of iu u-r n.u lrurul H'I.,IIIIII, wlu H' 1111 Id 0 IIIIIdll \ 1 1 1 1 ,\II~ IllItI, I

.hallcngc, S.tid's WOIle.11.t~1101111'1'1.1t-(,,, Ill '1'111'11'll, 11 11(.tllljtl,

no citation of' O rien /'(t U ,I'11 I :lIlywllI'II' III 111('POSllltod('11I ,0111111111II

readings edited by Dcr (kl'hlt and SIt


8/14

./

H\ II III i ,~II~ 11 / 1 1 11 1 1 11 11 1 11 1 11

Ild,llip,,

1111 , I ) I I II II I , / , ll l ij ,

mock-ruhy. Willlolll 11I'1.dlllllll~\ 11111' 1111, ~III11.111:111,11,/11/1II \PI

much the ('x(,l'plioll, W:dkl'l ltillllwll 11'1Ilfllllll'lI ,I~111111111'11111IIId

of literature ... has eIlH'I'g(,d largely Oil 1111'11I:lIgill,~0111111'111.1111111,11

Relations as an institutionalize-d disripl iu. 11 1'('lll:d'IMO\)H( III(', 111

alien to those whose training has been prilllHrily

w it

h in Ih(' pOllil1l

tic, realist, or policy-oriented main streams. If

The contrast with postcolonialism could not be slal'kcr. WI1('I'I' II1

ternational relations has ignored culture, or at most ~nldgi I1gly ( 1111

ceded it a minor role, postcolonialism has elevated culture 10 .iu

extraordinary degree. Although the understanding of' cuILIII'(' 11.1~

changed as the discourse has evolved, culture has been at the Itl':111

of postcolonialism from the outset. In the first phase of

pcstcoloul.rl

ism, culture was grounded in the literary context and understood

very much in terms of the clash of values engendered by the co lo n l.rl

encounter. Following postcolonialism's move away from specific t('X1

to a more generalized account of domination and resistance betW('I'11

North and South, culture has attained larger explanatory signifi(

tions. It has come to encapsulate the very site of struggle and difT('1

ence between the so-called margin and the center; the pivot UpOIl

which an emergent postcolonial identity develops. On one view, how

ever, culture has been overdone. In its attempt to be at the cuuiuj

edge of academic discourse, postcolonialism can be accused of Ita\

ing overstretched the analytical utility of culture. Yet such a persp(

tive underplays the significance of the cultural reorientation; it i~

precisely through culture that postcolonialism mounts a fundamental

challenge to the epistemological bases of established regimes 01

thinking such as international relations. In this respect its effect 1t:1~

been overwhelmingly positive.

To this point, the burden of our analysis has been to suggest tltal

international relations and postcolonialism pass like ships in Ill('

night. We have highlighted possible intersections and potential sit(,,~

of engagement, the idea being that both discourses might be ('11

riched through a process of cross-fertilization. Such enrichment

would follow partly from the very fact of difference. We now want

10

direct attention to three key areas of difference in which engagement

might have real significance, not only for each discourse but morr

generally for our broader concern with approaches to the North

Sou th divide. The first relates to power and representation, the SC(

ond to modernity, and the third to emotional commitment and

radicalism. In the process of contestation and comparison, the hope

is that we can get a better handle on understanding issues such aN

power and modernity as they bear upon the relationship between tlw

I M l i

1IIIIIIy

' Id 1\ /' 1 , , , 1 1 1 1 1

1 / 1

'

,

NIIIIII .uu l S'IIIIII 111 tll~, t llll~n 11,1\( (111'1/1111NI'I'lIgllt,~ .IIId wcuk-

1I1'~ NllId IlIllIf\ dllll'll'lIl IWllIlH'llivI'N 10 I)('al Oil Ill(' isstll's al hand.

III wl'klllg ,I c1.lIogl/(' :l Ild 1ll,t1dllg aSS('SSIII('lIls about what we might

k,'111 IIOIlI tll\'il dil I't-(:IlC'('S,we can begin 1.0bridge the discourses to

11,1111111111:\11)('11('11('

TIl(' fil'st sphere of difference identified between postcolonialism

0111


9/14

III IJ 11,11/11;,,11

;,~ 1\\111,II\l' P\II~IIIIIIi pWI I I

I:,'/lII;IY

illl

I , I , 1 1 , .

I,,\'.

, d, I,

1'1111

wl

dl

111 1'1

p,(lu IH

~t

,I~

l\l~li' I' ,IIId ,,,1' 111'.1'1

i Y

III ,,1\'11 '\

I'IIWI is II,s illvI'l'lt'd w\I VIIIyill).,dl').,'I's I

1 1

,d M'II-\,,'t\I,, ',',

(:\V('II Ihal \>OW(' iH di,.Il'lly r(,\all,d III ':I\Hlhllily :llld I't'HU, 'I'~,

\ - 1 .

(,,,I powers arc able 10 yid'\ (\olllilll(,tlby IIIe (olltl'Ol over ideas,

illl)II:Ili )II, nut l t'lIl11111Iltil:1Iou , 'I 'hc- :,I>ility

LO

interpret and repre-

1'1111>('1\1)11\('11:1wil h lu Ih Wcsl('Jl1 framework of understanding

d illlt'n'sts is lk('11 10

b(

Ih(' ultimate expression of power. It is be-

Ii,'v,'d to 1('11LISmore about relations of domination between North

.IIId South than the traditional measures used in international rela-

111i11S.From Fanon to Jan Mohamed to Bhabha, the connecting

Ih,'llI(, is that Western representations construct meaning and real-

1Iy in the Third World. Concepts such as progress, civilized, and

modern powerfully shape the non-European world.

This approach is exemplified in Timothy Mitchell's application of

Ih(' orientalist thesis to colonial Egypt in the nineteenth century. In

t olon sn

E gy pt

Mitchell refers to colonial power as the ability of the

mctropole

to enfrarne Egypt; that is, to order and make it legible so

,IS

to circumscribe and exclude those elements not amenable to

W(,stern sensibilities and, close behind, to Western interests.

Mitchell argues that modern colonialism was constructed upon a

vastly increased power of representation, a power that made possible

un unprecedented fixing and policing of boundaries; an unprece-

den ted power of portraying what lay' outside.' Power is determined

not so much by the obvious resource disparities between Britain and

I':gypt, but by the ability of the colonial order to establish an absolute

houndary between the West and the non-West, the modern and the

past, order and disorder, self and

other.

The Foucauldian shadow is

obvious here: dominant representations create regimes of truth,

which tend to exclude and marginalize while at the same time nor-

malizing'' that which was previously threatening. Akin to Marx's own-

IS of the means of production, postcolonialism locates power in the

runtrol over the means of representation.

The type of representational power just described is only one part

01 the (post) colonial encounter. Although the West is able to nor-

m al ize the non-West, such relations of dominance necessarily call

lorth resistance. This is the flip side of the power dynamic in post-

olonialism: although marginalized and dominated, the other fights

hurk. To return to Mitchell, the colonizing process never fully sue-

rrx-ds because regions of resistance and voices of rejection are pro-

IIIced.'3 These are celebrated precisely because they offer hope;

lomination is never total. This serves as an important contrast to in-

Irl'l1ational relations, in which, short of the extreme of revolution,

II(' prospects of weaker powers or actors are decidedly meager. As in


10/14

I

1 \

I 1

[

l'I'llIil1'111

I

,,.1

1 \ I

1'llti,,;

~\HI)

CVI'IY/,I'IO~IIIII I IlItlli( I, Iltl \IIMI'III,III'I,d''1I1I1I\1I\ III 1IMlllllllldidl~III,

the dominaled nlll ,tlW,lyHI,ll V I' (llll ,I MP'\(I' 11111l1i',\ldll~'llId IIII'IMIIII

Postcoloni;.lIism IIIIIS 1I11IVi'1IWl1Y11011111111(,11'll~1111111'11.d

v h -w

III

power and holds out lu: prospl'CI or I'I'sisl(\I\('t' 1'011111'11I:III-\III:tll/1d

peoples of the Third World, In Ihis ft-specl, il pl'Ovi(\(,s all illlj)llll.lIll

corrective to the narrow underslanding or power ill illlct'llaliollal 11'

lations, which leaves little space for other actors, 11:lIso (\in'('ls ,,1\('11

tion to the level of textuality as significant in shapi ng power rcll iOIl~,

postcolonialism articulates the possibility of resistance al levels 01IWI

than the state; that is, cultural and local, which hardly figu 1'(' ill i,l

ternational relations. In this way, it seeks to be an empowering ill

course for the South, although how far it actually addresses 1III

concerns of Third World peoples is another matter.

The emphasis on the textual and representational envisions 01hi','

problems. Whereas international relations can be rightly admollislwtl

for giving scant attention to the power of ideas and knowledge, IIIIMI

colonialism at times pushes the argument too far. There is a (('I I:ill

ease with which representation is taken to equal, or more specilintlly

to serve, power. Representation is usually taken to be functionnl 11'

the attainment of metropolitan power and interests. Yet, surely

I',

tain representations can be profoundly counterproductive. T1H' \

I:;

experience in Vietnam is a case in point. The type of enframinlJ, 1,1

Egypt that Mitchell describes can also be held to be corrosive 01 illl

perial interests. Indeed, Mitchell admits as much by pointing to 1111

inevitable resistance that takes place. In other words, rather 1It,III

being simply a contribution to domination, representations often 1,111

be viewed as sources of weakness.

A

particular representaliolhll

framework can run counter to perceived interests. Knowledge (':Ill III

based on quite irrational or misguided premises; Bhabha oftcu 11

minds us that colonialism was shot through with fantasy and (kNI,1

I

The assumptions of Western reason and progress, often taken III III

the discursive tools of domination of the South, can prove to Iw I

i I

functional.

The issue also arises of how one escapes the type of

reprcsvu-

tional power that produces orientalism in the first place, WII

strategies are available to the Third World? Given that represenlllll

is tied to information and communication, and given the obvillll ,I

unequal access to technology, it is difficult to envisage how the '1'111111

World might go about implementing a new representational rql,llIli

One recalls the almost forgotten push for a new information onll I

Ip

the 1970s as recognition of the very real material considerati()II'1 Iil

volved here. It begs the question of whether a counternarratiVl', 11'ld

linl Ill' pIlMlllllllld,I~11I1 I~1111111111111ll 11'1('\1III 1I'1:1~llioll :1~ylllllll'lli

I,d 11,1.,111111-'II PW('I '1'ItI~ IIIIIII-\MIn ilu- 111I'1'01111'1qiu-st lon co n-

I l'lltlllj.\ 1I'~i,~I 1(', WI,.II IHlit(' ('Xlii I I'l'llIli()lIsliip between resistance

.i

nd dOllli'lalillll? TI\(, IW tI :\1'('

S( ( I\

10 coexist ill postcolonialism. Yet

Iltl' sigllifinlll('(' ()I' t hc 1'I,,~jslall(,('outlined is questionable, given the

obvious persistence or Western hegemony. In other words, is resis-

1:III('Csimply appropriated?

This dilemma can be illustrated with reference to the interesting

work undertaken by James Scott on the weapons of the weak. The

uuavoidable conclusion drawn from the various techniques of hid-

dell resistance lauded by

Scott

(foot-dragging, rumor, folk tales) is

Ihat they end up only marginally affecting relations of

dominance.

Overall, one is left with the impression that postcolonialism exagger-

ales both Western dominance and Third World resistance. In the case

or the former, the irony of the representational focus is that, as in in-

icmational

relations, power is taken to possess a certain coherence

and logic in the way it is able to effortlessly dominate the Third

World. In the latter, it is not clear how effective resistance actually is.

Our second category of difference flows from the relationships of

Ibe two discourses to modernity. In outline, international relations is

Ibe dutiful child of modernity whereas postcolonialism is in large

part a revolt against it. I t must be said that the idea of modernity, and

even more the formulation increasingly

favored

to catch its political

operationalization-the modernity project-is understood in a

very expansive fashion. Nevertheless, for all its analytical looseness, it

brings to our attention the breadth of the processes of thought

spawned by the European Enlightment, which were taken to be uni-

versal and thereby escaped questioning. As a result, our awareness is

enhanced by the cultural specificity of many Western articles of faith

and by their

rootedness

in a particular moment of time.

The exposure of the relativity and contestability of so much estab-

lished thought is of major potential significance to both international

relations and postcolonialism. Indeed, it is scarcely an exaggeration

to claim that there are few issues in either discourse that are beyond

modernity's problematizing reach. It is our contention, however, that

neither discourse has faced up to the challenges involved. In ways re-

flective of their respective disciplinary predisposition, each has re-

sponded to modernity according to its own lights: international

n-lations by ignoring it, and postcolonialism by turning it to the pur-

poses of resistance. Let us consider each discourse in turn, noting its

loIl'neral orientation to modernity and then commenting on the im-


11/14

\'1(1 / 1/

I l lS /l iS

/ 1 1 1 , ., IIIIIIIIII /Ill'lllllllll~1/1 1 // ',, '1 /'/1 1 / /1 ,/1 /'1

plicflliolls of' 1ll0d('llIily 101' IWo I~Nllc'/Iof' p.11IlcllI.II 1.'lc'''''III'c' III 1111

future of the Third World, 11,(, II:IIIC. Hlall' :lIlcl c1c'vl'lop II:III,

Despite the critiques 01' its POSllllo(\('rllisl Will illl(,lllollioll:1I 111.1

tions as a whole has been Iiulc disturbed by 111('wash 1'1'0111lu- ell'I):llc'

about modernity. That the mainstream scarcely rccls il 11('(I'ss:II'y III

respond to postmodernist criticisms is testament cno ugl: 10 tltc' (011

tinuing sustenance provided by the discipline's intellectual illl'('11

tance. Although there exists disagreement about what should III

done, it would be difficult to deny that in many important n'sl)('I'I~

the discipline was shaped by the interests and ideals

o r

IIt.

Enlightment, and that ever since it has been deeply involved i11Ilu-

global elaboration of Western reason and modernity. Nor is I1t('II'

likely to be much dissent from the proposition that moderniry i~

deeply implicated in the nation-state and development prcjectsj ohu

Ruggie has demonstrated how the idea of the nation-state, tied as il

is to an exclusive form of territoriality, was a construct of European

though t in the space-time frame ini tiated by the Renaissance an d IIt:1I

it represented a break with what went before or existed elsewhere.'

Development did not fully emerge until the nineteenth century, Hlld

it drew on the doctrine of progress. Shaped within the crucible of im

perial trusteeship and internationalized by the mandate system of till'

League of Nations, it did not fully flower in international relatious

until after World War II with the Marshall Plan and the Point FOIII

Program.

It is possible that the contemporary processes working toward Ill('

fragmentation of states and the problems associated with revisioniuu

the European Community will force rethinking within internatiouul

relations about the nation-state in the context of modernity. As yc'l,

however, the process has barely begun. There is even less likelihood

that, within the discipline, development will be prised from its

rnorl

ernist anchorings. The pattern is now well established that the rnuu-

imaginative critiques and reorientations of development thinking

take place in development studies, and there is no reason to expc'l I

that the center of gravity of the development debate will shift back III

conventional international relations.

In a number of basic respects, postcolonialism is a discourse about

modernity critically received. Modernity is revealed as one of Ihi

faces shown by European imperialism and its successors, neocolo

nialism and globalization. Its disabling effects are presented as a I'll

tionale for Third World doctrines of resistance. In varying degrees, il

underpins the case for the retrieval of traditional culture and the :11

lure of precolonial values. From the early days when postcolonialisru

\

1 ' / 11 1 / 1 / '/ / ' / 1 1 11 1 1/ \ [ , / /1 1 /1 1 I1

\1 1 I

'iI~ 11 Cdl'ld l'IIII,_,.d '11tilll Will Id lie 111111,ll(' 11111';11osI'c1 I)y 111('

1I111t1I'1110 II.lilllll.1I ,llIllIllIlllIy .1/11111'1'HC'III'


12/14

VU /Ii1.~IIISII I III II I/I II II ,I/ I: I' I Ii / I' 'It/I',,)/, II/ IIl Iil l/l ~ 1 1/

pl'opl'ia(ioll, whl, 11 IllIp\i('/j 111,111111~I.III' 1,111III 11dlll'l 11d III Ill'\\'

purposes. /\s I'al'

a M

11,(' tI;1111111

N

lOll( ('IIII'd, PII~I(I)lol\l.dl'1I 1I'IIIvih

crates the category ill (II(' hopl' Iltal il (':111 4 1'1 VI' as a wlll( 11' rill t lu

recovery of national idc ntity


13/14

1 / , 1

1 1 / 1 1 1 , 1 '11 1 1' 1 / / 1 1 1 1 // 1 1 / / 1 1 ' / 11 1 // , , , , , 1 1 '1 ' . 1 , 1 1 / 1 1 / / / 1 // 1 ' II I


14/14

39 6 Bridging In te rn at io na l Relation s an d PostcoloniaLism

15. Homi K. Bhabha, Signs Taken for Wonders: Questions of Ambivalence

and Authority Under a Tree Outside Delhi, May 1817,

Critical Inquiry

12

(Autumn 1985), p. 152.

16. Ibid., p. 153.

17. Gayatri C. Spivak, Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography,

in Ranajit Guha, ed.,

Subaltern Studies VI

(Delhi: Oxford University Press,

1989), p. 5.

18. Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffen, note 6, pp. 145-154.

19. Ibid., p. 155.

20. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds., The Expansion of International

Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).

21. From An Interview with Chinua Achebe,

Times Literary Supplement,

Feb. 26, 1982,p. 209.

22. For example, many, although certainly not all, of its themes were antic-

ipated in a discussion between Arnold Toynbee and Raghavan Iyer during a

UNESCO radio program in April 1959, reproduced in Raghavan Iyer, ed.,

The

Glass Curtain Between Asia and

Europe

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965),

pp. 329-349.

23. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon, 1978).

24. Said, note 8, p. 23.

25. Said, note 23, p. 291.

26. James Der Derian and Michael Shapiro, eds.,

International/Intertextuo

Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington, Mass.: Lex in grou

Books, 1989).

27. R. B.]. Walker East Wind, West Wind: Civilizations, Hegemonies, alld

World Orders, in R. B. ]. Walker, ed., Culture, Ideology and WOTld O r / 'I

(Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1984), p. 17.

28. Raymond Williams,

Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and So

tilt/I'

(London: Fontana, 1976).

29. Ibid., pp. 77-80.

30. This point has been made by Jongsuk Chay in the preface of his ( (\illd

Culture and International Relations (New York: Praeger, 1990), p. xi. In llitll

book, R. B.]. Walker argues similarly: No doubt those who like their COII('('pl

to be precisely and operationally defined may find culture to be frusi nl1111H

vague and tendentious. They are likely to be perplexed by the variety of 1III'tlII

ings given to it. R. B.]. Walker, The Concept of Culture in the Thr-ur I III

International Relations, in Jongsuk

Chay,

ed.,

Culture and ,1 1,/ 1'1 11 111 /0 1 1 1 1 1

Relations

(New York: Praeger, 1990), p. 7.

31. Bull and Watson, note 20.

32. Aside from the writers covered in this paper, Walker has i(\('ll(iI11'iI ,,11i

ers who have attempted to treat culture as a serious aspect of ill1('1'11:111IId 11

lations: F. S. C. Northop, Adda Bozemarr's work on cultural ciiffl'\t'11I1 111

history, Hedley Bull and R.]. Vincent on the international sysl('11I:I~:1 1111111'

political community with shared values and culture, ;\11(\Ricli:1d l,'tdlll 1

other normative world order theorists. Yet, with the (X('('pilOII III 11 1111111

and Northop, whose focus is historical, most of these 11'('al (11111111'.n f l'

an adjunct to their broader concerns.

33. Ali A. Mazrui, Cultural Forces 'in World Politic s (1.011(1(111:11'h,,I I\'

1990), p. 8.

34. Ibid., p. 250.

Phillip Darby and A.

Paolini 39 7

35. Peter Worsley, The Three Worlds: Culture and World Development (London:

Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1984).

36. Ibid., p. 58.

37. Immanuel Wallerstein, Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the

Modern World-System, in Mike Featherstone, ed.,

Global Culture: Nationalism,

Globalization and Modernity (Newbury Park, CaUf.: Sage, 1990), p. 39.

38. R. B. J. Walker, CUlture, Discourse, Insecurity, Alternatives 11, no. 4

(October 1986), p. 495.

39. Walkel~ note 30,

p.

8.

40. AJi A. Mazrui, Towards a Pax Africana (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press,1967), chap. 8.

41. Timothy Mitchell,

Colonising Egypt

(Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1988), p. 33.

42. Ibid., pp. 167-168, 171.

43. Ibid., p. 171.

44. SeeJames C. Scott,

Weapons ofthe Weak: Everyday Forms of Resistance

(New

Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1985); and James C. Scott, Domination

and theATts oJResistance: Hidden Transcripts

(New Haven, Conn.: Yale University

Press, 1990).

45. John Gerard Ruggie, Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing

Modernity in International Relations, International 01ganization 47, no. 1

(Winter 1993), pp. 139-174.

46. Ashis Nandy,

The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under

Colonialism (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 87.

47. Ibid., p. 75.

48. Ibid., p. 107.

49.

B.

Rojo Laing, Search Sweet Country (London: Heinemann, 1986), p.

188.

50. Ngugi wa Thiong'o,

Matigari

(Oxford: Heinemann, 1987).

51. A. P. Thornton, The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies (London: Macmillan,

Il66; first published 1959), p. xiv.

52. Horni R. Bhabha, Freedom's Basis in the Indeterminate, October 61

(Slimmer 1992), p. 47.

I

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jessimaximo
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Darby e Paoloni (RI e pós-colonialismo)

Documents