i answered biko in a lengthy speechy kind of way. here is what i am thinking. i get this mostly from judith butler's Psychic Life of Power, where she talks about how it is we come to be subjects, to occupy subject positions. the gist of it is that we all, all of us, grow up in a position where we have to relate to dominant power, something we hold to be valuable, and than attempt to impose its control on us. we submit to that authority, assume it, incorporate it, make it us and make us it; but we also say no to it, rebel against it, fight it, hate it.
both.
bakhtin says the same thing about discourse; that we are appropriated by discourses that precede us, and that we have to enter into in order to speak, think, be. but we alter it, fight it, resist it.
butler ultimately says out agency derives from the struggle between these two positions. she calls it recuperation and rebellion.
i see recuperation as a relationship to power which is, in colonial terms, like assimilation. and like bhabha, i see that imitation, that bad copy, a form of reterritorialization and resistance.
i used to think there was only resistance or capitulation, instead of both.
but i think that the incorporation of dominant culture also entails a reshaping and resistance to it; and that maybe that is what we all do with respect to any cultural into which we enter in our lives. not only is it our agency, but the agency of culture to involve that push and pull.
colonialism is the extreme version of domination; but simultaneously the extreme version of resistance, of rejection, and of reformulation.
when leaders like nkrumah or even kenyatta moved into the political fray in their times, weren't they adopting a system, and using it to their advantages? simultaneously they played the traditional social structures to their advantage, when they could, even if it came to wearing the right kente cloths.
you highlighted the phrase dealing with rights; i am more interested in the phrase, "use to their advantage," which meant sueing, voting, organizing, resisting colonial powers using their own weapons against them, and seeing in those weapons something both useful and valuable.
the colonial powers were limited by their own notions of themselves, and fought immensely within themselves over how much control to exert or permit; but they were hedged at least partially by african insistence that those same laws or ideals be used to affirm african rights. think about all that pushing for legislative representation in kenya.
mostly, i do not want to turn this into some kind of historical discussion, but more a psychological one. that is, thinking that sueing was something available to the colonized, that it was an appropriate option not only for resistance to power but to seek just redress.
not that the european social structures are superior; but that they are now a resource appropriately utilized in african social contexts, and not simply foreign, inappropriate structures. that they cease to be foreign, eventually; that they become incorporated into the languages of today, and are turned to african advantage, as in sueing Trafigura for its illegal toxic dumping in cote d'ivoire
ken
On 6/29/11 7:15 PM, Pius Adesanmi wrote:
--"i've only recently come to see this, that despite the oppression of colonialism africans took away from the encounter with the colonialists much that they wanted and were able to use to their advantage, included ideas about liberal human rights, gender rights, and so on."
Ken, Ken, Ken:
How many times I call you? You got me into confusion break bones above. Help thou my unbelief.
Pius
From: kenneth harrow <harrow@msu.edu>
To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 28 June 2011, 16:11
Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Imperiled Revolutions
hi gloria
i agree that the absence of moral authority makes the rhetorical reasons for invading sound hollow. they mostly are hollow.
i couldn't begin to examine the moral authority of an invading force to judge the validity of the invasion.
i want to turn it around and claim that nations always act on their own national interest. if a leader were not to do so, he or she would be booted out.
so the question for me becomes, given that france and the u.s. and the u.k. are acting in libya for their own national interest, is the intervention itself something that i am happy is happening. and i mostly feel that ghaddafi should not have been allowed to quash the movements against his regime by the use of force.
i wish there were a way we could lend support to the uprisings in syria and bahrein and yemen, the democracy movement in morocco, even in algeria. i find these movements enormously inspiring.
i am skeptical that support for these movements will "install democracy." i am opposed to a model of african/arab/latin american peoples sitting around waiting for outsiders to install things into them.
on the other hand, on both sides, that of the invaders and the invaded, there are complicated mixed motives for action. sometimes it might be a simple landgrab, but often the contradictions between rhetoric and actions point to mixed motives.
i've only recently come to see this, that despite the oppression of colonialism africans took away from the encounter with the colonialists much that they wanted and were able to use to their advantage, included ideas about liberal human rights, gender rights, and so on. and some of this, maybe most of it, was despite colonial policies. for instance, colonial censorship was very severe, but the ideal of freedom of the press and rights of self-expression couldn't be extinguished, and they carry through today with journalists in africa some of the very bravest people on earth. in country after country that i follow, i see journalists on the firing line, and willing to risk jail or their lives. why is that?
we in the west talk about freedom of the press. there is much we could criticize about murdoch's press as biased and worthless trash; but that ideal of a free press, especially in countries like cameroon and senegal, is lived at a much much higher level than i've ever seen in the u.s.
basta
thanks for your response and thoughts
ken
(by the way, to justify my comment about women's rights being something african women took to their advantage, i would offer the novels of nwapa, emecheta, mariama ba....the older women authors who set the stage for african women's writing, as testament to my claim. they themselves wrote about their experiences in schools when they were young that gave them a spirit of freedom. add aidoo to that list.
another great example is wangrin by hampate ba, but that is another story)
On 6/28/11 7:06 PM, Emeagwali, Gloria (History) wrote:
> Ken, this time around I am merely the messenger, not the author,
>
> although I note your comments.
>
> Incidentally I disagree with your view that an invading power should not at least
> have some semblance of moral authority and some 'locus standi'. Without that
> its justification for invasion sounds hollow and it joins the league of blatant hypocrites.
>
> To say that you, as a power, are invading to install democracy whilst
>
> your own government is undemocratic is weird. What do you think?
>
> Dr. Gloria Emeagwali
> www.africahistory.net
> www.esnips.com/web/GloriaEmeagwali
> emeagwali@ccsu.edu
> ________________________________________
> From: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com [usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kenneth harrow [harrow@msu.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 5:51 AM
> To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Imperiled Revolutions
>
> the binary postulated here is too neat. "Islam" is better written
> "Islams." there are strong divisions in most countries in the middle
> east, i believe, concerning more conservative versus more liberal
> understandings of islam.
> i think one could also argue that liberal secularism is also the product
> of a relatively small segment of most societies around the world, with
> differences. in the u.s. conservatives run against "secular humanism,"
> and have managed to demonize it, for example. and the split here in
> france is clearly along similar left-right divisions over liberal
> secularism.
> ken
>
> On 6/26/11 4:15 AM, Emeagwali, Gloria (History) wrote:
>> Islam is embraced by the vast majority of the Middle East. The idea of a liberal secular republic is the vision of the bourgeoisie, professional elements among the middle strata, and the more organized and skilled sections of the working class. There is little doubt that the mosque provided an institutional foundation for opposition to secular authoritarian leaders – the Church took on a similar role in Eastern Europe under communism – and it makes sense that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood should have a jump start on political organization in the post-revolutionary society.
> --
> kenneth w. harrow
> distinguished professor of english
> michigan state university
> department of english
> east lansing, mi 48824-1036
> ph. 517 803 8839
> harrow@msu.edu
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
-- kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
harrow@msu.edu
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue- unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english east lansing, mi 48824-1036 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment