Including
PETER
America
H U L M E
A
x \ . s T H E R E L A T I V E L Y new field of postcolonial studies takes
shape, those of us whose work clearly is related to that field have
two choices. We can stand outside a n d pass disparaging comments o n the work i n progress, probably having to move o u r feet
pretty smartly as the terrain of what is potentially postcolonial
gets excavated faster than we can comfortably move; or we can
j o i n the t h r o n g o n the inside arguing about what crops to plant
a n d where to put the gates. (Decisive as we are, sitting o n
the fence is not an option.) In some ways, neither choice is particularly enticing. Those o f us who h a d thought we h a d opted
out of the postmodern suburbanization project soon f o u n d ourselves sharing small clumps of undeveloped l a n d with people we
wouldn't have been seen dead talking to 20 years ago, which left
us little choice but to h o p over the fence a n d lurk a r o u n d the
corners of the well-tended lawn trying to look disgrunded. O n
the other h a n d , the amount of collective effort involved i n shapi n g fields is so prodigious, one's colleagues a n d friends so reluctant to listen to advice, a n d so many more people w i l l i n g to draw
up plans than do the digging, that a glass of warm beer down at Ye
O l d e Bores' H e a d or even a pragmatic snack at that new fish
restaurant can almost seem like attractive possibilities. Almost.
Patrick Williams's a n d L a u r a Chrisman's Colonial Discourse and
Post-Colonial Theory, w h i c h is the first postcolonial reader but not
the last, reprints 31 articles, 21 of w h i c h have some clear geocultural reference point: eight relate to Africa, five to India, four
to the M i d d l e East, two to the U n i t e d States, one to the Caribbean, a n d one to L a t i n A m e r i c a . This is probably not an inaccurate map of how postcolonial theory as currently understood has
ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature, 26:1, January 1 0,9,5
118
PETER
HULME
developed a n d of the bits of the world to which it has p a i d
attention. A m e r i c a — i n a continental sense—barely features o n
the map at all. T h e reasons for this are not h a r d to understand.
For a start, the whole process o f postwar decolonization was
largely a p h e n o m e n o n of Africa a n d Asia: with the exception
of the smaller islands of the Caribbean, E u r o p e a n colonies
had disappeared from A m e r i c a by 1898. As a consequence, the
writers now recognized as the p r i n c i p l e postcolonial theorists
tend either to come from Africa a n d Asia or to write about them.
In addition, Edward Said's enormously influential books, Orientalism (1978) a n d Culture and Imperialism ( t g g g ) , have concerned themselves almost exclusively with the " O l d W o r l d , " even
when taking their analyses back into the nineteenth century or
earlier.
O n e o f the positive effects of the postcolonial debate has been
to re-awaken an interest i n the different forms of colonialism a n d
imperialism (for example, Shohat, M c C l i n t o c k ) . Nevertheless,
there is n o disagreement about what these are different forms
of-—in other words, there is n o disagreement that the generalizi n g words do make some sense. T h e b o u n d a r i e s — h i s t o r i c a l a n d
geographical—are o p e n to a degree of discussion, but o n the
surface it w o u l d seem a strange definition o f colonialism that
w o u l d not include within its purview the E u r o p e a n setdements i n
A m e r i c a that began i n 1492. Such strange definitions, however,
have been offered—new episodes i n the l o n g history o f "American exceptionalism." That phrase usually has meant the exceptionalism o f the "future U n i t e d States" (see Greene), but i n a
new twist there has been a recent attempt to argue that Latin
A m e r i c a n countries also fall outside the proper definitions of
colonialism (and, ipsofacto, outside the postcolonial field). Some
provocative but not very systematic remarks by the anthropologist Jorge K l o r de Alva suggest, i n a nice twist to the postcolonial
debate, that the very notions of colonialism a n d imperialism
came from the m o d e r n experiences o f the non-Hispanic colonial
powers a n d only subsequendy a n d improperly were imposed o n
the Spanish A m e r i c a n experience from the sixteenth to the m i d eighteenth centuries. K l o r de Alva wants to separate off A m e r i c a
altogether o n the grounds that the wars o f independence were
INCLUDING AMERICA
119
not fought primarily by people who were colonized against the
people who h a d colonized them. If this argument were correct,
then certainly L a t i n America, a n d probably the whole of the
continent, w o u l d fall outside the terms o f o u r discussion. But
while his description o f the A m e r i c a n revolutions is accurate
enough, he offers no c o m p e l l i n g reasons why we should take that
single, later definition as the m o d e l for colonialism a n d decide that since A m e r i c a n countries do not fit we therefore cannot
talk about decolonization or colonial discourse or postcolonial
theory with reference to the continent. Spanish colonialism i n
A m e r i c a was undoubtedly different from British colonialism i n
India: to deny that one was colonialism at all takes away the
g r o u n d that w o u l d facilitate understanding o f the particular
differences.
Attempts to widen the postcolonial focus similarly have met
with some suspicion: The Empire Writes Back, by B i l l Ashcroft,
Gareth Griffiths, a n d H e l e n Tiffin, set its horizons too broadly
for many people, allowing a postcolonial critique to co-exist with
colonial discourses f r o m the start, incorporating A m e r i c a but
also t r o u b l i n g the intuition that "post" s h o u l d retain some temporal sense; a n d Lawrence Buell's claim for " A m e r i c a n Literary
Emergence as a Postcolonial P h e n o m e n o n " has been greeted as
a rather clumsy effort to colonize postcolonial theory (Kaplan
21 ) — t h e wealthy farmer from down the road d e c i d i n g that this
field is probably o n his property. I share these suspicions. N o n e
the less, I suggest the following: i ) the field o f postcolonial
studies needs to find a place for A m e r i c a ; 2) the inclusion of
A m e r i c a will, a n d should, affect the shape a n d definition o f the
field; and, 3) more positively, many of the misgivings about the
role of A m e r i c a i n postcolonial studies, o n closer inspection, are
misplaced.
T h e first point is the least controversial. A t the moment, the
U n i t e d States has a role as the world's leading imperialist power;
the Caribbean is home to a r i c h tradition of postcolonial theory
— F a n o n , James, Glissant, L a m m i n g , Fernández Retamar; L a t i n
A m e r i c a is still trying to come to terms with postmodernity (see
Beverley a n d O v i e d o ) ; a n d C a n a d a — a s u s u a l — i s overlooked.
This unsatisfactory state of affairs c o u l d be improved drastically
120
PETER
HULME
by lengthening the historical perspective through a n d against
which the postcolonial field is constructed i n order that it i n clude the colonial experience of the whole of the A m e r i c a n
continent. N o single date is i m m u n e to objections, but 1492 has
no rivals as a starting point a n d has the distinct advantage, for
those of us interested i n the c o m m o n g r o u n d between postcolonial studies a n d Marxism, of working within the framework
established by M a r x for what he sarcastically designated as the
"rosy d a w n " of capitalism. O n e immediate consequence of this
step w o u l d be to provide the U n i t e d States with a nineteenth- a n d
twentieth-century imperial a n d colonial history that helps i n
the understanding of its current stance within the world (see
Hulme).
F r o m the postcolonial perspective, matters undoubtedly look
more awkward: A n n e M c C l i n t o c k amusingly raises the spectre of
H e n r y James a n d Charles B r o c k d e n B r o w n "awakened from
their tête-à-tête with time, a n d ushered into 'the postcolonial
scene' alongside more regular members like N g u g i wa T h i o n g ' o
and Salman R u s h d i e " (256). This b u n c h of netdes needs graspi n g firmly because it perpetuates two misconceptions about how
to use most productively the adjective "postcolonial." O n e misconception is that "postcolonial" represents some k i n d of badge
o f merit, a reward for having purged one's writing or intellect of
the evils o f colonialism. This move mistakenly perpetuates an o l d
game with the highest scores now awarded for such things as
native authenticity a n d rejection of E u r o p e a n languages rather
than for the o l d universals of beauty a n d truth: as a result we get
arguments that Achebe is postcolonial, Soyinka not; L a m m i n g is,
N a i p a u l not. Such games do us no credit. If "postcolonial" is a
useful word, then it refers to a process of disengagement from the
whole colonial syndrome, which takes many forms a n d probably
is inescapable for all those whose worlds have been marked by
that set of phenomena: "postcolonial" is (or should be) a descriptive, not an evaluative, term.
This point is related closely to the second misconception,
w h i c h concerns the much-discussed temporal implications of
"postcolonial." After o u r l o n g discussions about poststructuralism a n d postmodernity, it should not be too h a r d to grasp that
INCLUDING AMERICA
121
the "post" i n "postcolonial" has two dimensions that exist i n
tension with each other: a temporal dimension, i n which there is
a punctual relationship i n time between, for example, a colony
and a postcolonial state, a n d a critical dimension i n which, for
example, postcolonial theory comes into existence through a
critique of a body of theory analyzed as at least i m p l i c i d y "colon i a l " — w i t h the concomitant recognition that the critique i n part
is made possible by the object of the critique. We recognize this as
a productive tension when we discuss, for example, Black Skin,
White Masks as a postcolonial text. That Martinique was (and still
is) a F r e n c h colony does not disqualify F a n o n 's text from the
postcolonial field to which it belongs by reason o f its efforts to
think through a n d beyond the colonial situation. Equally, however, we recognize that the tension can be stretched beyond the
breaking p o i n t — a s is the case with some of the examples given
i n The Empire Writes Back.
B u t — a n d this is less well-understood—even the temporal
dimension of the word "post" is less restrictive a n d punctual than
often suggested. For example, the generation to which I belong
was often described i n the 1950s a n d 1960s as "the postwar
generation." That description d i d not mean i n any simple sense
that we were born after the Second W o r l d War, but rather that we
were marked i n various ways by that war without having lived
through it—because o f o u r parents' experience, through remembering the war's various aftermaths, such as rationing, etc.
Given a linear n o t i o n of time, that adjective still c o u l d be applied
to us, and, indeed, i f "post" were a merely punctual prefix, the
generation born i n the 1960s c o u l d be described equally well as
"postwar." That neither description is now applied suggests that
the prefix as normally used has rather more adaptability than its
critics imply. M y generation hasn't suddenly become "not postwar"; rather, the description has lost its sharpness over time as
other significant events have become part of our experience. If
later generations are "postwar," the term is likely to refer to
another war (Vietnam, for instance).
"Postcolonial" therefore should not be used as i f it were an
adjective describing a condition that is automatically a n d for all
time assumed once a formal colonial status has been left b e h i n d ,
122
PETER
HULME
any more than it should be taken for granted that the change i n
formal status automatically implies that the psychological, economic, a n d cultural effects o f being a colony can be sloughed off
like a snake's skin. N o t h i n g i n the normal use o f the prefix "post"
would even suggest all this, let alone the more nuanced ways i n
which literary a n d cultural critics should be able to use words that
are important to us. N o m o r e than generations are states described as "post-anything" i n perpetuity. We should have n o
difficulty is saying that the U n i t e d States was once "postcolonial"
i n one meaningful sense, but that at some point ( 1898? ) it ceases
to be useful to describe it as such. If such a label can make
Charles B r o c k d e n Brown m o r e interesting to read, then that is
something else to be said i n favour of the term "postcolonial."
T h e same argument applies to almost all of the countries of
Central a n d South A m e r i c a . A n d because "postcolonial" s h o u l d
not be used as a merit badge, the adjective implies n o t h i n g about
a postcolonial country's behaviour. As a postcolonial nation, the
U n i t e d States c o n t i n u e d to colonize N o r t h A m e r i c a , completing
the genocide o f the Native p o p u l a t i o n begun by the Spanish a n d
British. Or, to use a more recent example, "postcolonial" is not a
description that should be awarded Indonesia when it became
independent from T h e Netherlands a n d taken away again when
it invaded East T i m o r : a country can be postcolonial a n d colonizi n g at the same time. Such small complexities should not be
beyond us, even as we recognize that they need more investigation than they have received thus far.
T h e same arguments apply i n the cultural sphere. Because, for
example, Sarmiento does not match o u r heroic picture of a
postcolonial intellectual cut to the pattern of C. L. R. James or
Ranajit G u h a does not mean that his writings are not marked i n
roughly equivalent ways by an educational background entirely
colonial, a personal formation gained through exile a n d travel,
a n d a commitment to creating a new culture for a newly independent country. As time passes, a n d we keep re-reading F a n o n ,
perhaps the similarities between A m e r i c a n countries i n their
postcolonial phases a n d African a n d Asian countries i n theirs will
come to seem at least as important as their differences.
N o n e o f the above is meant to suggest that the word "postc o l o n i a l " can d o all the work. L i k e many of its critics, I am i n
INCLUDING
AMERICA
123
favour o f more a n d more analyses o f the different forms o f
imperialism a n d colonialism, o f m o r e a n d m o r e analyses o f
different local situations, a n d o f determined efforts to avoid the
ism-ization o f the adjective "postcolonial." B u t i f — a s seems i n evitable—"postcolonial studies" is the name that is g o i n g to hang
over the gate, then let us use the w o r d i n a way that includes
America.
WORKS
CITED
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and
Practice in Post-Colonial
Literatures. London: Roudedge, 1989.
Beverley, John, and José Oviedo, eds. The Postmodernism Debate in Latin America.
Special issue of boundary 2 (20.3). Durham: Duke UP, 1993.
Buell, Lawrence. "American Literary Emergence as a Postcolonial Phenomenon."
American Literary History 4 (1992): 411-42.
Greene, Jack P. The Intellectual Construction of America: Exceptionalism and Identity from
1492 to 1800. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1993.
Hulme, Peter. "Imperial Counterpoint." Wasafiri 18 (1993): 57-61.
Kaplan, Amy. "'Left Alone with America': The Absence of Empire in the Study of
American Culture." Cultures of United States Imperialism. Ed. Amy Kaplan and
Donald E. Pease. Durham: Duke UP, 1993. 3-21.
Klor de Alva, J. Jorge. "Colonialism and Postcolonialism as (Latin) American Mirages." Colonial Latin American Review 1.1-2
(1992): 3-23.
McClintock, Anne. "The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term 'Postcolonialism.'"
ColonialDiscourse/Postcolonial Theory. Ed. Francis Barker, Peter Hulme, and Margaret Iversen. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1994. 253-66.
Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf, 1993.
. Orientalism. London: Roudedge, 1978.
Shohat, Ella. "Notes on the 'Post-Colonial.'" Sodai Text 31/32 (1992): 99-113.
Williams, Patrick, and Laura Chrisman, eds. Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory.
New York: Columbia UP, 1993.