What do you call it when... ?

[Strong Flat White]

So I am getting a handle on post-colonial and globalization lit (namely, lit that deals with new identities in the wake of postcolonial self-determination movements and the weakened role of the state in IR), but this all seems to deal with an AFTER-the-fact sort of identity dilemma. Like, hey, we are now independent - now what!? But what about nations that are still seeking statehood/independence (Tibet, Chechnya, Quebec, Tamil Tigers, multiple Spanish and Western-European movements, multiple Celtic movements, etc)? I want to say, "nationalist" lit, but fear that it is too easily confused with Romantic-era lit. Or... "nationalist-in-the-global-age" lit, but that doesn't sound like something that exists. Surely someone out there has tagged this body of work with a decent moniker? Or, backing up, surely this body of work is one worth looking at in the first place?

What say you all?

Also: does there exist anything called "geographic existentialism"? I like the sound of it, and have googled it, and aside from some guy's blog in 2005 that is now defunct, it looks available for use.

Also: I've seen "hystercial realism" and "maximalism" used in reference to what I would think of as some quintessential "global lit" (Zadie Smith, Dave Eggers, David Mitchell, etc) -- but these labels seem to put the focus on a style/technique/method moreso than a content.

I guess what I'm looking for is, here we are in 2010. The Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain have been down for 2 decades now and post-colonial lit is a blast, don't get me wrong, but what are we calling lit that deals with the international system being turned on its head even if the borders have yet to be redrawn, even if statehood has yet to be achieved? There are plenty of colonial places out there that haven't quite reached the "post-" phase, or places where identity is the driving force of a political movement, not just the aftermath. I feel like I'm missing something in the lit world. Enlighten me, please.

[Strong Flat White]

I should clarify that I'm particularly interested in the novel/fiction as opposed to other stuff.

[ratiocinator]

I was fortunate enough to attend a talk by Spivak last week in which she touched on precisely this problem. Her point was that the "postcolonial" label (to which she says she and her peers always assigned an ironic tone) is, in many cases, something of a fiction—that the "post-" is always on the horizon, and that many (not all!) people who use the term "postcolonial" do so with a self-congratulatory attitude, which really ticks her off. When "post-" is inaccurate, she calls it "colonial," simple as that.

[Strong Flat White]

I was fortunate enough to attend a talk by Spivak last week in which she touched on precisely this problem. Her point was that the "postcolonial" label (to which she says she and her peers always assigned an ironic tone) is, in many cases, something of a fiction—that the "post-" is always on the horizon, and that many (not all!) people who use the term "postcolonial" do so with a self-congratulatory attitude, which really ticks her off. When "post-" is inaccurate, she calls it "colonial," simple as that.

Spivak! Awesome, thanks. I was actually thinking of the same thing, either calling it "colonial" or even "pre-post-colonial" if that makes any sense... (because "pre-" alone would indicate a much earlier historic time period)

[poco_puffs]

I have no answers (though I dig ratiocinator's response), but I can certainly say that I have dealt with what seems like a bewildering amount of theory and terminology and the simultaneous experience of never finding an accurate/existant phrase for the idea rattling around in my head.

Something of a tangential side-rant: As much as I'm drawn to the lit and the theory, every time I try to dig into Postcolonialism/Globalization there always seems to be some author, some text, some context that I'm missing and I lose my confidence instead of driving forward. It's all THERE, but at the same time it feels very elusive. Even Ania Loomba's "Colonialism/Postcolonialism," which is supposed to be an introductory text as far as I can tell, feels like we're joining a conversation that has been going on for thirty years and no one can really do an efficient job of summing it all up while still doing it justice. Then, THEN, when I feel like I've got some sort of grip on the ideas, I try to stand on my own two critical feet and make some conjectures, but it turns out that some essay I read a week later refutes everything I just said, or someone said the exact thing but twenty years ago and far better than I ever could. Or a professor just gives me a blank stare and has no idea what I'm trying to say-- like my idea is so trite or unfounded that they can't even respond to it verbally.

It's challenging, for sure. Gotta love it, though. Right?

Btw, I would totally read an essay about geographic existentialism. That sounds legit AND interesting

[wordslinger]

Something of a tangential side-rant: As much as I'm drawn to the lit and the theory, every time I try to dig into Postcolonialism/Globalization there always seems to be some author, some text, some context that I'm missing and I lose my confidence instead of driving forward. It's all THERE, but at the same time it feels very elusive. Even Ania Loomba's "Colonialism/Postcolonialism," which is supposed to be an introductory text as far as I can tell, feels like we're joining a conversation that has been going on for thirty years and no one can really do an efficient job of summing it all up while still doing it justice. Then, THEN, when I feel like I've got some sort of grip on the ideas, I try to stand on my own two critical feet and make some conjectures, but it turns out that some essay I read a week later refutes everything I just said, or someone said the exact thing but twenty years ago and far better than I ever could. Or a professor just gives me a blank stare and has no idea what I'm trying to say-- like my idea is so trite or unfounded that they can't even respond to it verbally.

That's the thing about ANY theory you try to write about/engage with... you can never read everything or be aware of every facet of the convo. So you just have to define your parameters every time you try to articulate your position (and hope that the person you left out wasn't THE person to read).

[Strong Flat White]

I have no answers (though I dig ratiocinator's response), but I can certainly say that I have dealt with what seems like a bewildering amount of theory and terminology and the simultaneous experience of never finding an accurate/existant phrase for the idea rattling around in my head.

Something of a tangential side-rant: As much as I'm drawn to the lit and the theory, every time I try to dig into Postcolonialism/Globalization there always seems to be some author, some text, some context that I'm missing and I lose my confidence instead of driving forward. It's all THERE, but at the same time it feels very elusive. Even Ania Loomba's "Colonialism/Postcolonialism," which is supposed to be an introductory text as far as I can tell, feels like we're joining a conversation that has been going on for thirty years and no one can really do an efficient job of summing it all up while still doing it justice. Then, THEN, when I feel like I've got some sort of grip on the ideas, I try to stand on my own two critical feet and make some conjectures, but it turns out that some essay I read a week later refutes everything I just said, or someone said the exact thing but twenty years ago and far better than I ever could. Or a professor just gives me a blank stare and has no idea what I'm trying to say-- like my idea is so trite or unfounded that they can't even respond to it verbally.

It's challenging, for sure. Gotta love it, though. Right?

Btw, I would totally read an essay about geographic existentialism. That sounds legit AND interesting

Well put. Re: geographic existentialism, I plan on writing that essay some day. But first I have to become fluent. Your well-articulated frustration with postcolonialism is actually some of the feelings I have, as a switch-over to the field, about theory and analysis at large. I asked in another thread the difference between analysis and theory and received some very good answers. But nothing concrete, nothing definitive, nothing that really clears up the murkiness or the mystery. Then again, I've also gone on record as saying that the switch in fields is a great match for me, personally, because I will forsake all quantitative-ness in favor of qualitative. And so, this "discussion" that I keep hearing about - well, it's all a matter of qualitiative fluency, and therein lies my strength, and therein lies the decision to go into English Lit in the first place. Back to square one!

[Strong Flat White]

That's the thing about ANY theory you try to write about/engage with... you can never read everything or be aware of every facet of the convo. So you just have to define your parameters every time you try to articulate your position (and hope that the person you left out wasn't THE person to read).

Right... but you're speaking particularly to this field, or all of academia? Seems like it is true anywhere, but more daunting in English lit, which is probably the purest and most original "interdisciplinary" field. I mean, all fields now boast their "interdisciplinary-ness" as a matter of survival, but English has always been psychological, historical, sociological, linguistic, political, economic, philosophical, etc, way before all social sciences tried to become hard science, way before every department had to cross disciplines to stay cool with the buzz word of the decade. I told one guy who was nice enough to sit down and listen to why I wanted to study this, and I told him I wanted a content-rich field. What an understatement. Content-rich doesn't even begin to describe this field. I think that's attractive - it's simply impossible to exhaust the material. Even the most prolific, influential thinker will only be scraping the tip of the iceberg. I really dig that.

[wordslinger]

Right... but you're speaking particularly to this field, or all of academia? Seems like it is true anywhere, but more daunting in English lit, which is probably the purest and most original "interdisciplinary" field. I mean, all fields now boast their "interdisciplinary-ness" as a matter of survival, but English has always been psychological, historical, sociological, linguistic, political, economic, philosophical, etc, way before all social sciences tried to become hard science, way before every department had to cross disciplines to stay cool with the buzz word of the decade. I told one guy who was nice enough to sit down and listen to why I wanted to study this, and I told him I wanted a content-rich field. What an understatement. Content-rich doesn't even begin to describe this field. I think that's attractive - it's simply impossible to exhaust the material. Even the most prolific, influential thinker will only be scraping the tip of the iceberg. I really dig that.

Well, I suppose it applies to academia in general, and what you've said is basically inarguable... Plus, I feel the same way: in English, the thinking is dynamic and thus interesting. But the point of my comment was not to poo-poo this overwhelming, beautiful mess that I love, as much as it was meant to address poco_puffs's feeling of inertia. No one can read everything and be aware of every theoretical direction and antecedent. So you cannot allow that lack of omniscience to stop you from articulating your position and engaging in the discourse. I can relate because it's a problem with which I have struggled; particularly last year when I began work on my thesis, I thought, "First, I'll read everything important, then write something." Three months before my deadline, I had to revise my thinking. The experience has not only made me a better writer, researcher, and thinker, but a much better teacher of writing and researched writing.

[poco_puffs]

Well, I suppose it applies to academia in general, and what you've said is basically inarguable... Plus, I feel the same way: in English, the thinking is dynamic and thus interesting. But the point of my comment was not to poo-poo this overwhelming, beautiful mess that I love, as much as it was meant to address poco_puffs's feeling of inertia. No one can read everything and be aware of every theoretical direction and antecedent. So you cannot allow that lack of omniscience to stop you from articulating your position and engaging in the discourse. I can relate because it's a problem with which I have struggled; particularly last year when I began work on my thesis, I thought, "First, I'll read everything important, then write something." Three months before my deadline, I had to revise my thinking. The experience has not only made me a better writer, researcher, and thinker, but a much better teacher of writing and researched writing.

I'm waiting for a shift like that in my own thinking-- I can get over my hesitation when I have a deadline coming up, but I struggle with the "inertia" when I'm researching on my own time. Even though I have so much extra time while out of school to catch up on my reading and theory, I feel like I absorb a lot less without the structure and community of classrooms or at least reading groups.

Plus, my undergrad wasn't very strong on theory, and I've got an inferiority complex that I'm trying to remedy by playing catch up during my year off. Too bad I just keep reading the introduction chapter of Orientalism over and over again without really getting into the meat.

[wordslinger]

I'm waiting for a shift like that in my own thinking-- I can get over my hesitation when I have a deadline coming up, but I struggle with the "inertia" when I'm researching on my own time. Even though I have so much extra time while out of school to catch up on my reading and theory, I feel like I absorb a lot less without the structure and community of classrooms or at least reading groups.

Plus, my undergrad wasn't very strong on theory, and I've got an inferiority complex that I'm trying to remedy by playing catch up during my year off. Too bad I just keep reading the introduction chapter of Orientalism over and over again without really getting into the meat.

I don't think there is anything strange about needing a group to be your sounding board. Have you tried to form a reading group for working through some of the difficult theory stuff? I know that I would have drowned without my wonderful writing/reading group. I found my group through my involvement with the National Writing Project, which is very active at my current university.

Also, I really recommend the "Very Short Introduction" series. I don't know if you've seen these books, but they are short (obviously) and very helpful for giving you an overview of the conversation before you plunge into the difficult stuff.