Miller 1

Michael Miller

Dr. Jeffrey W. Timmons

ENG400 - 29120

April 30, 2016

How Empires Ruin Everything: Postcolonialism, Race, and Ethnicity Studies Unified

Beginning in the fifteenth century and continuing to impact literary and cultural critics

today, postcolonial studies sought to recover the excluded or marginalized subaltern voices

from the all-consuming Western Empires of Britain, France, and the United States, and to

reinstate the original voice of the text a theme repeated throughout race and ethnicity studies

(Leitch 27). The primary focus and critique of this class of critics was in the nature of

representation, or perhaps more accurately, the misrepresentation of the original voice of the text

by Western Imperialistic ideals forced upon it by political and, ultimately, economical

consumption. Each independent group of critics, the Postcolonialists and those who specifically

studied race and ethnicity, pursued the same goal of true textual representation though they were

all influenced from very different points of origin. Edward W. Said, for instance, experienced a

particular sort of ostracism as a Palestinian educated in British and American colonial schools

in Cairo and later in U.S. universities where he experienced firsthand the complicated relations

between the East and the Western imperialism (Leitch 1861). Another critic in this class, Paula

Gun Allen, was born in New Mexico where her mother was Laguna-Sioux and her father was

Lebanese American (Leitch 2000). Her perception of Western patriarchal interpretation of tribal

Native American texts led her to fight against the colonialism she also personally experienced.

Finally, Barbara Smith, a self-proclaimed pioneer of black lesbian textual interpretation, sought

to engage a misunderstood and marginalized group of black female writers in order to create an
 Miller 2

entirely new genre of literature and criticism which could rise up against the patriarchal and

racist views that had kept them silent (Leitch 2221). Although all three writers begin with

extremely different backgrounds, each postcolonial or racial and ethnic-focused individual

fights against the same stigma imposed by the Western Empires. Perhaps, for sake of argument,

these different groups might be classified as Anti-Imperialist: not merely writing after an

event in an attempt to analyze it historically, but writing to inspire a new interpretation and

respect for the different cultural groups that had been largely ignored by the white, male,

Western ideals imposed upon these minority groups. Whatever title they may be given, each

Anti-Imperialist author sought to free a particular disregarded, misread, and often minority group

of people from the false, misinterpreting, exclusionary, and damaging effect of the Empires

imaginary constructs.

Edward W. Said might be said to have laid the groundwork for all minority studies in his

postcolonialist definition of Orientalism. Praised as an organic intellectual who developed

both his criticism and cultural advocacy out of his personal roots, Said argues that European

and U.S. literary and cultural representations, academic disciplines, and public perceptions foster

biases against non-Western people (Leitch 1861-2). Said argues in his work Orientalism, that

the West invented, not discovered, the East, and that this invention, although primarily a

critique on the Wests inability to understand different cultures, was used to dominate the East

(1866-7). Building on the poststructuralist work of Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida, Said

hopes to focus literary criticism on the authors style, figures of speech, setting, narrative

devices, historical and social circumstances, and not just the correctness of the representation

(1882). He also draws upon the ideas of a textual network of meaning, using Orientalism as a

system for citing works and authors and arguing for the need of critical exteriority to
 Miller 3

discover a texts truth, not its false representation (1882, 1884). Finally, Said lays out his goals to

move literary criticism beyond its Imperialistic confines by defining three aspects of

contemporary reality. The first aspect, Said argues, is of the distinction between pure and

political knowledge (1872). Although it is impossible for any critic to separate themselves from

the biases of their cultural upbringing, the scholar must seek to gain true knowledge, free of

racist or Imperialistic dogma (1873). This freedom then allows the critic to identify the

Imperialistic political culture that seeks to saturate civil (and thus literary) society in an effort to

extend its own dominance (1874-5). The second aspect of contemporary reality for Said is the

methodological approach that is necessary to create a beginning place for anti-imperialist studies

as well as identify the link between authority (Imperialism) and Orientalism (1878, 1881).

Finally, and perhaps most important to Said, is the personal dimension: we are, as readers,

writers, and critics, a network of cultural influence, but Orientalism, in its unveiling of the

Wests desperate desire to assimilate and then falsely replicate different cultures into its own

economically motivated fabrication, is a human rights concern that carries a moral implication

necessary to truly understand literary works from these marginalized groups (1886-7).

Applying Saids methodology of Orientalism to feminist Native American tribal

literary tradition, Paula Allen Gunn sought to expose the patriarchal bias that has been

systematically imposed on traditional literary materials and the mechanism by which that bias

has affected contemporary American Indian life, thought, and culture (2004). Not only was the

Western mind incapable of grasping the distinctive reality of Native American tradition, but it

had imposed its single-focus, monotheistic, and patriarchal interpretation upon the traditional

tribal belief that views the mutual relationships among shadow and light . . . creating a living

web of meaning that are perceived in a unified-field fashion (2020). Allen further argued that
 Miller 4

translations of any kind are never innocent and that when Western assumptions are applied to

tribal narratives, they become mildly confusing and moderately annoying from any perspective

(2015). This is a fantastic remark that displays the emotional impact of Imperialism her

traditions are being so grossly misinterpreted and reproduced that she is angry and annoyed, a

feeling echoed by many in this critical class. Gunns final precept was culture is fundamentally

a shaper of perception, after all, and perception is shaped by culture in many subtle ways. In

short, its hard to see the forest when youre a tree (2005). Acknowledging the difficulty of

stepping outside of cultural biases, Gunn beautifully argues that it is then vital for literary

criticism to have an insiders perspective when examining texts that have been historically

skewed by Western imperialist dogma in order to help the reader see past the false representation

into the true textual meaning.

Lastly, Barbara Smith applies this same postcolonialist view of misrepresentation in her

examination of black lesbian feminist text and criticism. Smith believed that a separate and

significant political movement was necessary to amplify a writer seeking to break the silence

and isolation of black lesbian women and wanted to begin using literature and criticism in a

way that would teach each of us . . . not only better how to live, but how to dream (2237).

Believing that, in America, black women, especially lesbians, faced a singular sort of ostracism

even from other marginalized groups like the early feminists, Smith defined herself as the writer

who would break the silence and isolation by first shedding light on the lack of black lesbian

literature and criticism which, she believed was politically motivated (2235). She began her text

Toward a Black Feminist Criticism with a clear statement of her goal: I was attempting to write

something unprecedented, something dangerous, merely by writing about Black women writers

from a feminist perspective and about Black lesbian writers from any perspective at all (2223).
 Miller 5

In is unfortunate that Smith is often considered an Essentialist for her insistence on a separate

literature and criticism for black women, since there are many examples of her linking her

singular experience of ostracism to that of women in third-world countries, almost equating their

patriarchal suppression (Leitch 2222, Smith 2226-7). Like Gunn and Said before her, Barbara

Smith identified a missing voice in literary criticism that she hoped she could amplify through

courageous, anti-imperialist writing.

In conclusion, it is easy to see how Edward W. Said, Paula Allen Gunn, and Barbara

Smith each understood and experienced the negative representation imposed by Imperialism

upon their own individual culture in their own personal way. Interesting, though, is the

undeniable link between each critics unifying tale of misrepresentation based on Western

Imperialistic ideals that were used, for economical and political reasons, to control a specific

minority group of individuals. What postcolonial, racial, and ethnic literary criticisms seek to

help their audience understand is that, in those individuals whose voice has been erased, mutated,

or minimized through economic Imperialist motives, there is another perspective to be offered

that can help the reader gain a greater understanding and appreciation for the truly unique

cultural significance of any text.

 Miller 6

Works Cited

Leitch, Vincent B., ed. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton

& Co, 2010. 27, 1861-62, 2000, 2221-22. Print.

Allen, Paula Gunn. Kochinnenako in Academe: Three Approaches to Interpreting a Keres Indian

Tale. Leitch 2004-5, 2015, 2020.

Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Leitch 1866-67, 1871-75, 1881-82, 1884.

Smith, Barbara. Toward a Black Feminist Critic. Leitch 2223, 2226-27, 2235, 2237.