Going back for a minute
Returning for a brief minute to Bhabha (I know, I know), and his "less than one and double": I think this statement particularly references John Stuart Mill's utilitarian premise of "each to count as one and only as one," and asserts that this principle cannot hold true in colonial discourse due to the very nature of that discourse. Roy identifies Bhabha's statement that the "less than one" occurs at the moment of colonial enunciation; I read this as saying that by addressing the colonized as such, the colonizer reinforces their position as having a lesser voice, as being subservient, as not equal:
"Western imperialist discourse continually puts under erasure the civil state, as the colonial text emerges uncertainly within its narrative of progress." (Sly Civility 97)
This seems to provide a basis for the 'doubling' effect of address; on a textual level, the colonialist writes "we are equal," on the subtextual level (which Bhabha references) the colonialist writes "we are master:" or phrased another way, "you possess autonomy as such/we are stripping you of your autonomy." Bhabha seems to be taking a shot at the Utilitarian arguments appropriated to support colonialist intentions, and pointing out the problem of colonial discourse with respect to utilitarian ethics. I think Bhabha might rewrite the Mill's creed to say something more along the lines of "each to count as one and only as one, with the exception of colonial states, in which case the British Empire counts for two and only two."
"Western imperialist discourse continually puts under erasure the civil state, as the colonial text emerges uncertainly within its narrative of progress." (Sly Civility 97)
This seems to provide a basis for the 'doubling' effect of address; on a textual level, the colonialist writes "we are equal," on the subtextual level (which Bhabha references) the colonialist writes "we are master:" or phrased another way, "you possess autonomy as such/we are stripping you of your autonomy." Bhabha seems to be taking a shot at the Utilitarian arguments appropriated to support colonialist intentions, and pointing out the problem of colonial discourse with respect to utilitarian ethics. I think Bhabha might rewrite the Mill's creed to say something more along the lines of "each to count as one and only as one, with the exception of colonial states, in which case the British Empire counts for two and only two."
posted by Nate at 5:45 PM
1 Comments:
Thank you for this, Nathan. I was being lazy in deferring the heavy-lifting to someone else regarding this particular notion (at some point everyone gets a bit beaten down by the rigor of reading Bhabha!), but you've really helped me understand that phrase. For some reason I was wanting to interpret this more in terms of the self (along the lines of the colonizer realizing something less than a coherent self, but paradoxically/subconsciously also something much more (i.e., at least double) as a result of the implicit hybridizing transactions), rather than through the lens/situation of colonial address.
Post a Comment
<< Home