This afternoon I spent some time in the library doing a bit of research on postcolonial criticism. I am currently enrolled in a postcolonial literature course, and thought it might be helpful to understand the perspective from which such critics analyze literature. I’m not going to deny the fact that this was unassigned work, I know, I am a dork. Simply put, or rather as an act of defense, allow me to say that I just dislike enrolling in a course and feeling as though I have little or no foundational knowledge on the subject matter. Furthermore, I was able to gain, even if only ever so slightly, a bit of understanding on another literary theory, namely that of postcolonial. I am quite thankful for the interrelationship between English classes.
Postcolonial literary critics re-examine classic literature with a specific focus on the social discourse that shaped it. Messiah College English majors, note that once again that which we learned in heteroglossia, namely that of discourse is of utmost importance. Postcolonial theorists describe the colonial subject as having double consciousness or double vision. This meaning quite simply that the colonial subject has a consciousness, or way of perceiving the world, that is divided between two antagonistic cultures: that of the colonizer and that of the indigenous community (Critical Theory Today 368). Many postcolonial theorists argue that postcolonial identity is necessarily a dynamic, constantly evolving hybrid of native and colonial cultures. This hybridity or syncretism does not consist of a stalemate between two warring cultures but is, rather, a productive, exciting, positive force in a shrinking world that is itself becoming more and more culturally hybrid (Critical Theory Today 369).
- please note this blog is informal and likewise so is my writing and citing of works- yes, I do know how to use MLA, and to write properly but I am not going to stress over it for the purpose of blog entries
No comments:
Post a Comment