One of the things I found very interesting about all of this week’s readings was that they each presented a different focus and perspective on discussions of postcolonial and transnational studies. Loomba makes us reflect on what might be a use of terms that comes as second nature to us but that might also serve to propagate stereotypes (often without the intention or realization of doing so). Loomba also draws our attention to the very important distinction that not all counties that are technically in ‘post-colonial’ situations have the same experience of or relationship to the former colonizing nations, and that we must always remember that the meanings of terms such as colonialism and imperialism should be seen as fluctuating according to context and to situation.
Thiong’o puts forth a discussion that is extremely relevant to today’s academic practices, and one that rings a significant degree of similarity to discussions that sometimes surface in the country and at the university that we study at; I remember the Department of English discussion two to three years ago about making an Indigenous Studies course (either the Indigenous Foundations course, a First Nations studies course, or the 400-level English Lit course focused on First Nations literature) a requirement for an English major degree (I believe there was also a concurrent discussion about making a First Nations studies-focused course a requirement for the larger BA program as well). I’ve since graduated from the program, but taking a look at the UBC calendar, I can see that such requirements have not been implemented for either the BA or the English Lit major (the anthology’s introduction to this section is also very illuminating, and I am reminded of this as I type the name of the major).
What has been implemented, however, is an Aboriginal Rights and Treaties course at UBC’s Faculty of Law, as part of the students’ Constitutional Law training. While not related to our immediate study of literature or theory, I believe this example is important because the legal system is an integral – if not perhaps the most powerful – part of today’s society in Canada. It’s important to note that this change in the curriculum did not take place until 2012 (in the law school’s defense, it does a great reputation for its emphasis on teaching Aboriginal law and I think they should be praised for taking the lead on developing this requirement in order to make sure that the proper time is allotted for its study; my understanding is that studies of treaties were always included but different profs taught them at different points in the curriculum – this way everything is more solidified and the proper study time is guaranteed. Hopefully more law schools in Canada will follow UBC’s example as one can’t help but wonder how law students can learn about constitutional law and not discuss treaties). For a complete explanation of how and why the law school did this, please see the following article: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/4315/UBC-making-aboriginal-law-course-mandatory.html.
I also found Bhaha’s discussion of the ambivalence and mimicry as part of the larger explanation of how colonialism works very interesting, and McClintock’s framing of her argument around Benjamin’s concept of the Angel of History was very fitting. However, the excerpt that I was interested in this week was Said’s “Jane Austen and Empire,” because of the way that he used Mansfield Park as an example that stretched forth his arguments. It was very interesting to read a discussion of one of Jane Austen’s works not in the usual realm where one can find her work discussed, such as the use of satire, the social novel, treaties on the role and position of women in English society, etc. – but within a discussion of colonialism. Of course, this has a lot to do with Said’s point – how Western discourse often underwrote colonial policy and licensed further imperial undertakings. I read Mansfield Park quite a few years ago and can remember almost nothing of the 1999 film production that I saw at the time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW1iLzHeG1s), but when recalling the basic plot of the novel when I saw Said’s mention of it, I did remember that Sir Thomas’ absence was explained as due to him having to ‘look after business affairs’ in Antigua.
Said’s mention of the fact that we never see Sir Thomas in Antigua – as in, there is never a moment of dialogue or any scene set there – is very interesting; I don’t remember this striking me as odd when reading the novel, as Austen’s works are so focused on the microcosm of the English estate and the furthest places from the estate that are ever depicted are the locations of seasonal stays. However, the fact that this didn’t strike me as odd really is indicative of how the entire apparatus works; both these affluent estates and other seasonal homes are sustained by the exploitation taking place in Antigua (in this case). The article’s tracing of how domestic and international authority are joined by Austen is well-established. The example of how when Sir Thomas returns to the estate, he immediately ‘fixes everything’ also presents an implication that he engaged in the same action in Antigua, and therefore, advances the view that ‘there’s nothing he can’t fix’ is very crucial (in my opinion) to Said’s article. It is for such reasons that Mansfield Park and perhaps others of Austen’s novels are so interesting to subject to Said’s analysis – precisely because they would not be the first example that comes to mind.