Reader/author Theory

[W]e are as separate from ourselves as other people (Adam Phillips).

Discuss.

The separation of the self, from the self and from others, is a preoccupation across Phillips work in psychology. His 2004 essay reflects on the way we want to represent ourselves to ourselves and others , recognising a divide between essential and presented selves (Phillips 2004:61). Considering Bellow and Ravelstein four years previously, it is possible to see a Foucauldian stance on identity informing Phillips work namely, hearing and bearing what other people say about us informs what we can hear and say and think about ourselves (2000:8). Indeed, in his theories on the relationship between power and knowledge, Foucault stipulated that those in power define the identity of those subjected to that power (1980:142). In terms of post-colonial discourse, it is vital to explore the implications and accuracy of this statement, which appeals to the work of Spivak and Bhabha Indian theorists with much to say on the subject of colonisation and its effect on the colonised. Spivak focuses on the subaltern, who is separated from herself and from others when she is defined through the colonists definition of themselves as ideally imitable and powerful. This implicitly leaves those outside the colonising group as less so. Bhabha manwhile questions the phenomena of mimicry in Anglicisation, in terms of the separation from self and others which it creates for both coloniser and colonised.

Bennett and Royle state the heart of the issues which preoccupy both Spivak s and Bhabha s discourse on the post-colonial that Western notions of human identity itself as universal or unchanging may be recognised as a historical construct constituted by the exclusion, marginalisation and oppression of racial others (2014:238). The ingrained prejudices which comprise many Western notions of identity must be challenged if genuine understanding of the Other is ever to be achieved, allowing the postcolonial self to be reconciled to itself and made less separate from others. In identifying ingrained Western prejudice, Spivak looks at Foucault and Deleuze s discussion on power, which she views as an unguarded practice of conversation (1994:66). She believes that this conversation shows Foucault and Deleuze to indiscreetly extol a theory of power which fails to question the position of the white hegemonic power that they are part of. This is a quality belonging to a societal group that she later terms as hegemonic radicals (1999:290). In the Foucault/Deleuze discussion, Foucault advocates a transparent political representation where oppressed subjects speak, act and know their own conditions (1988:p207). However, Spivak notes a worrying gap between the aesthetic and political representation of the oppressed subject, and that when Foucault s ideal of representation is mapped on to a model of the third world, this gap becomes highly objectionable, separating the subaltern subject from other people (Spivak, 1994, p70). In terms of aesthetic representation in artistic, cinematic or literary work, the form of the work itself foregrounds its status as a re-presentation of the real, rather than an accurate presentation of it. This becomes worrying when aesthetic representation of the oppressed subject by the hegemonic intellectual is echoed in the form of political representation of the oppressed. Political representation poses as a presentation of the real, when in fact it is a hegemonic minority speaking on behalf of others. Therefore, in trying to politically represent the subaltern, the aesthetic representation of the subaltern is subordinated to the voice of political proxy who speaks on their behalf. In this way, the symbolic aesthetic representation is often taken as a true expression of the subaltern s political desires and interests, with re-presentation posing as presentation (Morton, 2003, p58). In this sense, there is a problem with Foucault s ideals of representation he is a French intellectual, a member of the hegemonic West, claiming to speak for the disenfranchised, from whom he is inherently separate. Paradoxically, this silences the subaltern, because when those who are more powerful claim to speak on their behalf, the subaltern s true voice is never actually heard.

This in turn separates the subaltern from herself and from other people, noted and expanded upon by Spivak. Between patriarchy and imperialism which were two supposed freedoms, as postulated by the colonising West the figure of the woman disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the third world woman caught between tradition and modernisation (1994:102). Here, Spivak highlights that the lot of the subaltern as defined by the West is to remain outside the history of her own culture, and outside the progression of the incoming coloniser s culture separate from both herself and coloniser. Therefore, the true subaltern cannot know and speak the text of Western perspective of subalternity, as she is outside it. However, it should not only be for the subaltern to attempt to speak the language of her oppressor, but for her oppressor to attempt to understand what the subaltern is saying. As long as the West s perception of subalternity remains skewed, even if space is created for the subaltern to speak, the West cannot understand her true oppression, and therefore remain separate from her. As Sharp notes: Western academics... seek the experience, but not the wisdom, of others (2009:112). The solution, then, is not to advocate for the subaltern identity after all, who the hell wants to protect subalternity? (Spivak 1992:46). With the reality that intellectuals will continue to silence the subaltern, even if trying to help her, the solution is for the hegemonic group to take into account the fact that political representation raises the same problems as aesthetic representation, and therefore is not whole or accurate. It is Western methodologies that must change to incorporate subalternity, in order for Western perception to be accurately altered and enable comprehension of the conditions of subalternity. Only when this happens can the subaltern speak and be heard, without subalternity being perpetuated. This is applicable to Bhabha s supposition that the colonial subject is an incomplete and virtual presence, as separate from himself as other people (1994:123). Before being colonised, the subject presumably had a complete presence within their society. This would be evidence that it is only by the imposed standards of the colonist that the colonial subject s identity becomes incomplete and virtual at least in the eyes of the hegemony. The confusion created by this enforced separation of colonised self from pre-colonial self manifests, in Bhabha s opinion, in the Anglicisation of the colonial subject. In order for him to become less separate from himself, reclaiming an identity predating the imposed hegemonic ideology, the hegemony must first alter the methodologies and theories constructed on the premise of the West as ideally imitable and powerful.

Considering both Spivak and Bhabha s aversion to the perpetuation of the subaltern or colonial subject, it is worth questioning Spivak s use of the disappearance of the subaltern woman in order to articulate their material and cultural histories (Morton 2003:59). Why does she emphasise the history of the subaltern, which arguably promotes continuation of subalternity? I would propose that this stems from underlying issues with the term post-colonial , which implies that colonial is the only history of colonised societies. We must also question what came before colonial rule. There unequivocally was history and culture within societies before hegemonic groups colonised them, as presumed by Bhabha in his discussion of the colonial subject s incomplete and virtual presence. Similarly to Bhabha s presumption of pre-existing identity to colonisation, the above Spivak quote suggests that the subaltern was a subaltern before colonisation it was simply colonisation that separated the subaltern from the hegemonic Other and made her disappear (Morton, 2003, p59). This signifies that colonisation did not create the subaltern, but enforced her silence. Therefore to bring her into view, the subaltern s own experience of both pre-colonial and colonised history must be presented in her own voice, to a West whose hegemonic mind has been altered to comprehension of experience so separate from its own. This would emphatically not be to perpetuate subalternity but to give opportunity for her to be heard, acknowledged and her identity to be legitimised, thereby narrowing the separation from herself and other people. Bhabha notes that it is disturbances of racial, cultural, and historical difference that menace the narcissistic demand of colonial authority (1994:126). This maps on to Spivak s work she disturbs differences between the subaltern and the hegemonic by highlighting and validating said differences historically, rather than repressing them and perpetuating the necessity for the subaltern to speak in her oppressor s voice.

This disturbance of difference in attempt to undo separation from both self and others is undeniably complicated. Spivak acknowledges that nostalgia for lost origins can be detrimental to the exploration of social realities within the critique of imperialism (1994:87). Temporally, pre-colonial history has been blurred through the lens of colonialism it is now hard to separate the authentic from the reconstituted, and therefore to be aware of how social realities differ from pre- to postcolonial as well as attaining true accounts of subalternity during colonisation. Seemingly, Bhabha recognises this blurring too, when speaking of double inscri ption in the colonial text s presentation of authority and authenticity (1994:195). This refers to the gap between political and aesthetic representation. Presented identities of Englishness are aesthetic representations, yet they translated to political representation particularly by colonisation. As the hegemony was English, the colonised allied Englishness with social and political power, and performed stereotypical Englishness themselves in attempt to enter into this system of power. This shows English identity to be performative through Anglicisation and therefore hollow, as it is not necessary to be English to present oneself as such. In this way, Bhabha sees the colonial system of power undermining itself as Sharp highlights, Western thought is structured around a series of binaries which suggest that a person is one thing or the other , yet the mark of the self in the other here, in Anglicisation challenges the existence of binaries (2009:121). Developing this, it is arguable that the colonisers themselves were performing Englishness, as they were removed from imperial crown and country, but aesthetically and politically representing both. Bhabha argues that mimicry consists of repeating, not representing (1994:324). But, the colonised populace s mimicry of Englishness repeats a representation put forwards by colonisers therefore neither attempt to identify as English is authentic, showing both colonised and coloniser to be as separate from themselves as other people.

Consequently, it is worth returning to Foucault s stipulation that those in power define the identity of those subjected to it (1980:142). Examination of Spivak s discussion shows disagreement with this - the identity of subaltern supposedly pre-existed colonisation, so is not defined by the hegemony, but is silenced as Western constructs separate her from the hegemony and herself. Here, a better phrasing of the Foucaldian concept is: those in power ignore, or cannot recognise, the identity of those subjected to that power. In terms of Bhabha s work, there seems to be an implication that power defines the identity of those wielding it and those subjected to it. Colonisers have power and mimic the imperialism that they represent, but do not actually retain, while the colonised recognise the power of the colonisers and mimic the already mimicked Englishness. This evidences the hegemonic power itself as illusory, in terms of identity, as soon as it is wielded. Here, a better phrasing of the Foucaldian concept is: those in power have their identity defined by it as much as those subjected to it, leaving them separate from themselves and from those outside power. Foucault s declaration that those in power define the identity of those subjected to it creates a comfortable theoretical position. It imposes clear hierarchical structure, with power flowing in one direction. This model of power and its effect on identity is a logical one. However, as Bhabha and Spivak highlight, the flow of power is never so simple nor unilateral. To truly understand the separating effects of power upon the self, it is vital to widen comprehension of those in power and those subjected to power, giving voice and valid identity to individuals and their cultures without forcing separation from themselves or others.

Word count: 2,000

Bibliography

Bennett, Andrew, and Nicholas Royle ed., An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, (Oxon: Routledge, 2014).

Bhabha, Homi K. Of Mimicry and Man, in The Location of Culture, (Oxon: Routledge, 1994).

Foucault, Michel, `Body/Power` and Truth and Power , in C. Gordon ed., Michel Foucault: Power/Knowledge, (London: Harvester, 1980).

Foucault, Michel, Intellectuals and Power: a Conversation Between Michael Foucault and Gilles Deleuze in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg eds., Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, (Basingstoke, Macmillan Education, 1988).

Morton, Stephen, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, (London: Routledge, 2003).

Phillips, Adam Bellow and Ravelstein in Raritan: a quarterly review, Vol. 20, No. 2, (2000).

Phillips, Adam On Not Making It Up, or, the Varieties of Creative Experience in Salmagundi: a quarterly of the humanities & social sciences, Issue 143, (2004).

Sharp, Joanne Geographies of Postcolonialism (London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2009).

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: New Nation Writers Conference in South Africa (Interviewer Leon de Kock), in Ariel: A Review of International English Literature, volume 23, number 3, p29-47, (1992).

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, Can the Subaltern Speak? in Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman ed., Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory: A Reader, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason , (London: Harvard University Press, 1999).