Who Speaks for the Subaltern?
December 30, 2014 5:36 AM   Subscribe

When Subalternist theorists put up this gigantic wall separating East from West, and when they insist that Western agents are not driven by the same kinds of concerns as Eastern agents, what they’re doing is endorsing the kind of essentialism that colonial authorities used to justify their depredations in the nineteenth century. It’s the same kind of essentialism that American military apologists used when they were bombing Vietnam or when they were going into the Middle East. Nobody on the Left can be at ease with these sorts of arguments.
Vivek Chibber (Professor of Sociology, New York University) discusses the pitfalls of postcolonialism in the wake of his controversial book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital.

Chibber's book has been attacked vigorously by postcolonial theorists, most notably Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in the Cambridge Review of International Affairs (first-page preview here), who accuses Chibber of practising something called "Little Britain Marxism":
In a 306-page book full of a repeated and generalized account of the British and French revolutions, and repeated cliches about how capitalism works, and repeated boyish moments of ‘I have disproved arguments 1, 2, 3, therefore Guha (or Chakrabarty, or yet Chatterjee) is wrong, and therefore subaltern studies is a plague and a seduction, and must be eradicated, although it will be hard because careers will be ruined, etc.’, there could have been some room for these references to describe the range, roots and ramifications of postcolonial studies, so that the book’s focused choice could have taken its place in Verso’s protective gestures towards the preservation of ‘Little Britain Marxism’ ... [Chibber's book] is [a] blunt... instrument, and its attempt to disregard the range of postcolonial studies in order to situate subaltern studies—confined to three texts—as its representative can mislead students more effectively.
Chibber responds to Spivak's review in the same journal, defending himself against the charge:
The biggest problem with postcolonial theory is that it seeks to undermine the very areas of Marxist theory that ought to be retained, that are in fact its strengths—the reality of capitalist constraints, regardless of culture; the reality of human nature; the centrality of certain universal aspirations on the part of the oppressed, which issue from this human nature; the need for abstract, universal concepts that are valid across cultures; the necessity of rational, reasoned discourse, etc. And the reason these propositions need to be defended is not that they comprise a doctrine that Marxists seek to uphold, but because they are defensible on their own merits. It has long been a tactic of postcolonial theorists to offer their framework as not only a direct lineal descendant of Marxist theory—which it is not—but also as the only sustainable version of Marxism—which it is emphatically not. Any criticism of their arguments is thereby impugned as an unthinking adherence to orthodoxy, or a search for doctrinal purity. Spivak’s characterization of Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital as ‘Little Britain Marxism’ is but the latest incarnation of this, and readers should not be misled by it.
Elsewhere, Chibber focusses his attack on postcolonial theory more narrowly, identifying it as a symptom of the Left's wider political failures in the late twentieth century:
Post Colonial Theory [PCT] has emerged and flourished at a time of general retreat for progressive forces, perhaps more so than any other time in the modern era. For the generation of students and activists just coming of age, the only form of critical or radical theory they have ever encountered is some version of PCT or its cousins. Many of the ideas associated with progressive movements of the past century – of universal emancipation, egalitarianism, class organizing, internationalism – now seem quaint to them, if not odious. These are the ideas I try to defend and revive in Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. Perhaps ... in the not too distant future, the theories associated with PCT will seem as little more than a bizarre interlude, a temporary descent into self-absorbed tomfoolery by intellectuals. But here today, it is apparent that these currents, however odious their ideas may be, wield tremendous influence in the intellectual landscape. One can only hope ... that it will soon be behind us.
posted by Sonny Jim (61 comments total) 29 users marked this as a favorite
 
My executive summary is that subaltern theorists are insisting that capitalism hasn't spread to their cultures, or at least not totally, while Chibber insists that it has and sees those cultures in a shared peril that the subalterns fail to recognize.

The subalterns, in turn, perceive Chibber et al.'s efforts as a possible element of capitalism trying to universalize itself.

<3 critical theory although sometimes it feels like religious exegesis
posted by radicalawyer at 6:13 AM on December 30, 2014 [5 favorites]


It would be interesting to have more of the critiques available - I don't think it's fair to Spivak to link Proyect and a partial view of her essay, and it doesn't seem to get at much criticism of Chibber.

Some things occur to me:

1. This is a conflict between high-ranking and powerful people (in academia, anyway), a number of whom are from high-ranking backgrounds in India. Just as we conveniently forget that Zizek is from some kind of highly politically connected background, it's easy to forget that this argument is essentially between people who are Doing Very Nicely, and to me it always has a flavor of "who gets to be the smartest bestest intellectual" rather than "how do we bring about social change".

2. Marxists in general have this method, where they're all "our system is the only scientific system that explains All The Things - it's the only one that works! - and yet somehow despite its obvious superiority it has been displaced by these inferior systems, because other people are either too stupid or too mendacious to accept marxism"...If only it weren't for those tricksy post-colonialists who have somehow bamboozled people, why then....Chibber et al never ask themselves why marxism isn't intellectually hegemonic* (and in the Jacobin interview, Chibber actively resists the opportunity to say anything at all about why postcolonial studies might have some value, even when it's very clear that the interviewer is creating a space for him to do so in two of the questions).

3. And I think the only place to go with that is the way that marxism functions - that it does not function in a liberatory manner, and in those places and times where it has functioned in a liberatory manner, it has been successful in mobilizing people (and been, honestly, not that different from anarchism - a lot of the Italian autonomists of the seventies, for instance).

4. You can see that in Jacobin. I want to like Jacobin, I really do, but so often it just feels like the same marxist dudes from grad school marxing at you - majority male, mostly dealing with male intellectuals, overwhelmingly straight or at least not talking about anything not-, majority white....basically, the same intellectual arbiters setting the tone and topic, deciding what's legitimate, who gets to speak and in what language. Class first, because class is the axis on which they can - sort of - narrate their own oppression as adjuncts or whatever.

5. Spivak and Chibber is basically the "Washington or Moscow" of theoretical options, and I prefer neither.

6. The trouble with Chibber's [oversimplifying] position on post-colonial studies seems to me to be this: post-colonial studies is trying to name an outside to Capital, which is probably a waste of time. But when Chibber (and various critics of post-colonial theory) say that there is no outside to Capital and that therefore marxism, I feel as though what they mean is "therefore your objections to marxism-as-it-is-theorized-and-practiced are either meaningless ("There is no alternative!") or else have to be addressed by negotiation with us, the official marxists". It's like, there's no outside to upper class male intellectuals, either - they're just as pervasive as capitalism, and they seem to be just as hard to displace. It's like Chibber is trying to describe a world where there's only one revolutionary possibility, only one revolutionary action. Whereas what draws a lot of people to post-colonial studies, I think, is not only the actual genuine global failure of marxism as a universalizing system (I mean, the revolutions happened and you lost, you fucked it up, you tried to apply a whole-world analysis based on marxism and all that happened was that you ended up screwing over women and Jews and queers and people of color, etc) but also the desire for space to have difference.

7. One thing I really like about Samuel Delany's novel Stars In My Pocket Like Grains of Sand is the way that there is this plurality and this constant shifting - anarchist social formations right next to communist, right next to libertarian capitalist (of course, Delany being Delany, those always crash and burn)....that there's no desire to subsume the world into one hegemonic narrative.


*Actually, just like psychoanalysis, I think it is - we're always-already marxists, because so many of our underlying categories of analysis are marxist.
posted by Frowner at 6:19 AM on December 30, 2014 [48 favorites]


(But also thanks for posting this - I enjoyed reading it.)
posted by Frowner at 6:26 AM on December 30, 2014 [3 favorites]


It's a losing battle.

Subaltern studies are the academic wing of a pragmatic movement of existing, self-identifying communities to obtain tangible goods for themselves. Those communities elites are happy supporters of subaltern theory because the elites reap a high share of the value of those goods, and stand to do so in the future.

Academic Marxism is the academic wing of ... nothing and no one outside of academia. To the extent that their theories offer something of value to oppressed communities, that value would bypass the communities' elites, or even help to displace those elites.
posted by MattD at 6:37 AM on December 30, 2014 [4 favorites]


It would be interesting to have more of the critiques available - I don't think it's fair to Spivak to link Proyect and a partial view of her essay, and it doesn't seem to get at much criticism of Chibber.
I agree and you're right and I'm really frustrated that the Spivak review's not available on open access. It was at one point but then Taylor & Francis put it back behind their paywall. I linked to Proyect because at least there was some Spivak there, but would that there were more. There's more meat behind the "controversial" link in the FPP, which is in part an interview with Spivak in which she puts forward some additional critiques of the book, but it's almost parenthetical to the main review itself and she seems unwilling to go into much detail.
I want to like Jacobin, I really do, but so often it just feels like the same marxist dudes from grad school marxing at you
Ha! Yeah. Actually, there's a long interview with Jacobin founder Bhaskar Sankara about the magazine in the latest issue of New Left Review, which is a pretty interesting read in itself ...
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:38 AM on December 30, 2014 [3 favorites]


A long interview with the founder of Jacobin in the New Left Review? That astonishes me....

This also reminds me that I want to read Provincializing Europe; it's haaaaaaaaaarrdd and so it kind of fell off my list.
posted by Frowner at 7:50 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


That interview is something else, all right. Especially the parts where the interviewer asks him about contributor demographics. It's very important to note that they're graduate students and most people are under 35; it's not at all important to talk, for example, about how many are women.

I mean, seriously, a marxist social formation that could attract large numbers of women who actually talked to and prioritized each other would be one I'd have time for - as it is, the usual arrangement in marxist social circles as I know them is that there are a few women but they don't talk to each other, many come in as girlfriends, most prioritize the men in the group, most do their best to mimic the behavior of the men even when it's really jerky or sexist, there's a lot of pressure to the be marxist cool girl, etc etc. And as a result - but it's not even the most important result to me, since I have but one life to live and don't want to live it having to swallow a lot of condescention and meanness in my political projects - there really just isn't any discussion of anything about feminism or women's lives unless it can be simplified and totally subsumed into really, really old school marxist analysis. People may read feminist stuff, but it certainly doesn't translate into conversation or anything more complex than "of course women should be equal as workers, also rape is bad".

He certainly seems like a brilliant fellow with a lot of...er...interesting interests, but (and the interview is a limited form) a lot of it seems very culturally marxist in ways I do not enjoy - the contemptuous little asides about other left groupings and non-marxist intellectuals, the firm conviction that one has already got the ideas that one needs all neatly wrapped up, the plans for converting others that don't seem to have much to do with what others want or need, a sort of inner-circle-ism...
posted by Frowner at 8:06 AM on December 30, 2014 [17 favorites]


Frowner: “... the contemptuous little asides about other left groupings and non-marxist intellectuals, the firm conviction that one has already got the ideas that one needs all neatly wrapped up, the plans for converting others that don't seem to have much to do with what others want or need, a sort of inner-circle-ism...”

That's the best description of critical theory I've ever read.
posted by koeselitz at 8:16 AM on December 30, 2014 [5 favorites]


I want to like Jacobin, I really do, but so often it just feels like the same marxist dudes from grad school marxing at you

That, and its reveling in the name of a bunch of murderous thugs.

posted by IndigoJones at 8:17 AM on December 30, 2014 [6 favorites]


Ah, I see Edmund Burke has joined the thread.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:20 AM on December 30, 2014 [10 favorites]


Who?
posted by koeselitz at 8:21 AM on December 30, 2014


This thread reads like typical leftist academic in-fighting.
posted by vicx at 8:23 AM on December 30, 2014


Well, I don't see anybody fighting. Do you?
posted by koeselitz at 8:23 AM on December 30, 2014


Edmund Burke wrote a famous critique of the French Revolution (and is a figure beloved by conservatives like David Brooks, et al). Thomas Paine famously responded.

But anyways, the refighting of the French Revolution seems like a huge derail.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:28 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


I don't like the font they use on Jacobin.
posted by vicx at 8:29 AM on December 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


As a historian, I worry about our understanding of history - of what actually happened, of how things really worked - being distorted by excessive application of theory.

It's important to theorise because it is only through the applications of models/theories that one can start up generalise from particulars.

But generally, I've found critical theory specifically very unhelpful in understanding history. When trying to understand something like past power structures, I've found it so much more helpful to think about basic self-interest, as mitigated by cultural norms/values. For instance, if you look to the growth of capitalism in early modern Britain (what Marx was mostly writing about, and my area of research), you don't really see a big divide between feudal and capitalist structures, but really interesting things like new money landlords who tried to use old feudal rights to promote their capitalist interests.

You also see old money aristocrats embracing capitalist developments, and new money guys embracing feudal trappings like titles and estates. And it can be summed up: rich people like making money, and will do so anyway they can (semi) legally do so.
posted by jb at 8:33 AM on December 30, 2014 [18 favorites]


It would be helpful if there were some kind of intellectual rubric to describe how and in what ways critical theory fails to be helpful in any meaningful fashion to addressing or combating inequality. In effect, Spivak and others seems more effective at distracting and confusing those who would seek change, like glittering baubles for the intellectual set. I recognize that that's probably glib on my part, but what has critical theory actually accomplished in fostering change?
posted by leotrotsky at 8:41 AM on December 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


Good point JB but this is an attack on theory so "self-interest" becomes another western concept. Self-interest might not be universal enough. Personally the issue of universality looks unresolvable if you want to get overly critical.
posted by vicx at 8:42 AM on December 30, 2014


That, and its reveling in the name of a bunch of murderous thugs.
"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."

-Mark Twain
No torch of enormity the Jacobins lit, or could have lit, would ever be visible against the supergiant star of atrocity that is monarchy and aristocracy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:44 AM on December 30, 2014 [24 favorites]


And anyway, Sankara claims he was nodding at C. L. R. James with the title of his magazine, not making an explicit reference to the French Revolution:
I actually heard of the Haitian Jacobins before I heard of the French ones. The Black Jacobins was probably in the back of my mind when I first started thinking about the magazine.
Like all gratuitous references to childhood reading and books that just "happened" to be lying around one's childhood home, though, we should probably take that with a grain of salt.
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:49 AM on December 30, 2014


I'd totally read an online magazine called "Jacobite."
posted by koeselitz at 9:02 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


You're in luck!
posted by Sonny Jim at 9:09 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


Frowner, it seems to me that a lot of your criticisms are misplaced.

Marxism is a lot of things. Yes, it informs a political practice but it also is a method of historical analysis. Granted, the motives of one for the conducting the later may be forwarding the former, but nevertheless I think we can separate the two.

The historical question at stake in these debates is how development happened (or did not happen) in South Asia. Marxists, of which of course Chibber is a member, have certain ideas about how that happened. Subaltern Studies, from what I understand (and I agree that it would help to have primary sources here rather than just excerpts on a third-party blog or a hostile reply to evaluate the argument), tries to both challenge Marxism's universalisms about capital by pointing to aspects of development that can not be explained by this logic.

Marxism seems to reply to this by saying two things: 1) capitalism does allow for regional variation; uneven development has long been a part of Marxist theory and 2) the Subaltern Studies line of thinking seems to be re-introducing the excoticism of Eastern societies that Marxists and even liberals fought so hard against in the preceeding decades.

So what is Spivak's response to Chibber's criticisms? Again, it would be nice to have her tracts, but the sense that I get is that her reply is essentially "how dare you." Other post-colonial authors have less flippant responses, but in the end I should say that I am firmly in Chibber's corner on these matters.

By the way, I'm not sure whose views are being labelled as "critical theory" (not a term Frowner used, but others) here, but Chibber would most definitely reject that label for his work. I'm unsure if the post-colonial theorists would accept it, either.

So that's the debate that this thread addresses.

Frowner brings up several other matters in comments -- how Marxism and other ideologies fare with respect to the ties between real movements and intellectuals; why certain ideologies appeal to certain demographics; how sucessful various historical movements have been; how demographically diverse the contributors to Jacobin Magazine (founded by a Pakistani-American with a self-described "lower-middle class" background, and which regularly features articles -- including perhaps its most famous -- by women) are -- which are tangential matters, and certainly worth discussing on their own terms.

I will leave most of those alone, except for one which I think needs refuting: to quote Chibber, the idea that "the battle is apparently between open-ended, creative Subalternists [or autonomists or what have you -- NPB], trying to expand received theory to make sense of a complex reality, and the stolid, unyielding Marxists who cast out anyone who dares to question Holy Writ."

The truth of the matter is Marxism has quite a wide range of thought within it, and has been more than able to accomodate other currents -- feminism, for example -- in its discourse. Chibber himself, since he comes up in this thread, has quite a few critiques of orthodox Marxism:
As for Marxism, there is in fact plenty in the received orthodoxy that is either mistaken or questionable. To give some examples:
. The orthodox theory of historical materialism is almost certainly wrong
(Chibber 2011).
. The labour theory of value may very well be wrong, and if it is not, it can only be defended in modified form.
. The traditional theory of bourgeois revolutions is definitely wrong, as I explain in great detail in PTSC.
. Marxism still has a poorly developed moral theory, though that situation is now greatly remedied.
Here are some videos of Chibber, et al speaking about the PCT debate:

2013 Historical Materialism Conference debate

The Problems and Perils of PostColonial Theory
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:15 AM on December 30, 2014 [9 favorites]


I like that Jacobin is named for Toussaint L'Ouverture and the CLR James book - I think that's an excellent founding gesture, and the logo is fantastic.
posted by Frowner at 9:16 AM on December 30, 2014


Damn Metafilter. I thought I'd just check in for a minute, and then I read this article and realized I knew diddley-shit about Post-Colonial Theory and decided I really should catch up a little, and before you know it I was looking up the term subaltern, and, well, I'm not getting much done this morning. It is .3 degrees here, so hanging out indoors is not a bad idea, but still…hey, you know there is a game called Subaltern?
posted by kozad at 9:22 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


Whoops, that second video link should link here.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:23 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


Frowner brings up several other matters in comments -- how Marxism and other ideologies fare with respect to the ties between real movements and intellectuals; why certain ideologies appeal to certain demographics; how sucessful various historical movements have been; how demographically diverse the contributors to Jacobin Magazine (founded by a Pakistani-American with a self-described "lower-middle class" background, and which regularly features articles -- including perhaps its most famous -- by women) are -- which are tangential matters, and certainly worth discussing on their own terms.

See, I don't think they're tangents. I think that the way these conversations always go - inside the usual discourse box - is "oh, in order to critique marxism you need to get into the weeds of marxist theory, you need to come over to us and engage us before we'll listen to you". Basically, it works as a way of always accepting marxism and marxists as legitimate revolutionary subjects, and accepting what they say as more important than what they do. That's why these conversations usually seem to go nowhere, at least as far as I'm concerned. Marxism-as-it-currently-functions-in-the-US is basically the danger of a single story. Marxists and marxism do not work well, not because they can't but because they put themselves in situations where they can't, and those situations are the ones where there's no listening to women, no listening to non-intellectuals, distrust of material that's not from their standpoint even when it would be useful, etc. And most of all, I think, assuming that marxism is basically a finished work - if it weren't a finished work, of course, no one would set themselves up as marxist intellectuals who have the yes and the no and who can correct others' interpretations of their lives.

Marxism - unlike anarchism - really aspires to be this universal explainer, this universal language which "anyone" can speak (as long as they're educated enough, use the right terms, have read enough marx and are willing to accept intellectual correction from their superiors in the movement, of course).

The ways that marxism works socially limit marxism both intellectually and politically.
posted by Frowner at 9:31 AM on December 30, 2014 [7 favorites]


I'd totally read an online magazine called "Jacobite."

All disparaging Elizabeth "Windsor" and running big fawning profiles of the Duke of Bavaria's redecoration of the Nymphenburg and special print out 'n' keep souvenir supplements for the 270th anniversary of the '45 and like offers of tartan slippers and all.
posted by Segundus at 9:33 AM on December 30, 2014 [6 favorites]


This is the first time I've come across that meaning for the word 'subaltern' - in my mind it's firmly applied to all those junior officers of the British Army who appeared in 19th century novels. Carry on, chaps!
posted by Azara at 9:36 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]



Marxism - unlike anarchism - really aspires to be this universal explainer


But I should add that anarchism sucks in its own special ways...I've just been thinking a lot about different cultural styles, which really is a tangent. Anarchism's non-universal-explainer status is a difference but not a particular virtue.
posted by Frowner at 9:38 AM on December 30, 2014


So, like, is anyone interested in talking about the actual articles? Or did I miss the memo where this thread was set aside for free association about the words "Marxism" and "Jacobin"?
posted by RogerB at 9:41 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


I dunno Frowner I didn't think this interview or even the book referenced was about Marxism. I thought the interview was about "the postcolonial theory known as subaltern studies". What do you think of that topic?
posted by vicx at 9:47 AM on December 30, 2014


Frowner, it seems like you're attacking a straw man Marxism. Or, if not a straw man, the difficult Marxists that you may have had personal experience with in the past.

But in any event, again, this seems to be far afield from the matter of if the claims that postcolonial theory is making are valid or not.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:50 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


This is slightly tangential but still on the general topic of the article...

The labour theory of value may very well be wrong, and if it is not, it can only be defended in modified form.

Here's what I struggle with: statements like this don't make much sense to me, because as I understand it, aren't basic assumptions like labor theory of value versus more contemporary conceptions of value really just stipulations or formal axioms that aren't really "right" or "wrong?" Aren't such assumptions merely axioms that lead to different kinds of systems with different kinds of outcomes?

I guess, it seems to me there's too much logical positivism or idealism in Marxist thought. An economy is just a game with rules. If one of those rules is that economic value is defined as a function of labor expenditure, then that game would tend to deal with labor in a particular way in its formal operations. If on the other hand, you pick some other basis for economic value, then you do the math differently and you end up with different results.

It seems to me there is nothing independently real about any economic systems or ideas. They are attempts to formally describe particular sets of value assumptions and predict the outcomes of certain processes given particular assumptions and not much more. I don't think there's any underlying true dogma that exists independently of human social values and ethics. We have to tailor the rules of our game (market) to give us the outcomes we want. The game itself can't tell us what outcomes we should be aiming for or how to get them without us bringing some external, preexisting notion of human values to bear on the game.

It just doesn't make sense to me to say "labor theory of value" is right or wrong. It's either the assumption we go with because we have chosen to value the time and exertions of people who labor in a fundamental way, or it's not. It's not an idea that yields testable predictions without our defining some external objectives to measure against first, and those objectives are necessarily a question of external (to economics) human cultural and social values and our collective goals for society, not math.

I guess the way that this relates most directly to the article is that it raises a question for me: Does Marxist theory assume and depend on the assumption of an independent, ideal and universal economic Truth? If so, then maybe that's a mistake, and the knock-on effects of that error are ultimately what post-colonial critiques of Marxism are (deliberately or accidentally) honing in on as problematic. (I am no expert on Marxist thought, believe me, so I apologize if I'm garbling any of these ideas.)
posted by saulgoodman at 9:51 AM on December 30, 2014 [4 favorites]


I dunno Frowner I didn't think this interview or even the book referenced was about Marxism. I thought the interview was about "the postcolonial theory known as subaltern studies". What do you think of that topic?

Did we even read the same article? Chibber is a marxist. His whole point in the interview is that marxism has much more explanatory force than post-colonial theory and that post-colonial theory is in opposition to marxism and thus messes everything up. The interview in particular positions post-colonial theory in opposition to marxism. That's not the only thing in the world to talk about, but it's certainly relevant.
posted by Frowner at 9:52 AM on December 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


But you're right, I was being kind of a dick, and I apologize.
posted by Frowner at 10:03 AM on December 30, 2014


Yes I read it and I thought the introductory paragraph was odd. So I just focused on the questions and the answers. So that is how I read the interview.

I do think that Chibber is worried about post-colonial theory --- and I will have to find the exact words he uses in the interview - cause I don't have the book.

I am not a Marxist but I don't like to see Mum and Dad fight.
posted by vicx at 10:04 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


as I understand it, aren't basic assumptions like labor theory of value versus more contemporary conceptions of value really just stipulations or formal axioms that aren't really "right" or "wrong?"

You may be misunderstanding the sense of the word "value" that's involved. It's meant to be a descriptive theory of economic value, i.e. exchange value, i.e. how commodities are priced (in some final determination after much adjustment for other factors). And so in principle it ought to be empirically testable, even if it's obviously complicated to figure out how to do so. There's a long, long, long-running debate both within Marxian economics and outside it about whether the labor theory is capable of accounting for prices and whether, if it isn't, that invalidates it — really, a pretty large chunk of political economy over the last three centuries or so is about this problem in one way or another — but making a gesture of actually thinking about whether the labor theory is true, rather than taking it as an orthodox article of faith, is recently seeming to be common among certain circles of Marxian political academics.

posted by RogerB at 10:07 AM on December 30, 2014 [3 favorites]


OK I think I get where Chibber might be coming from. This towards the end of the interview

" ... institutions have been opened up to groups that, historically, were kept outside: racial minorities, women, immigrants from developing countries. These are all people who experience various kinds of oppression, but not necessarily class exploitation. So there is, as it were, a mass base for what we might call oppression studies, which is a kind of radicalism — and it’s important, and it’s real. However, it’s not a base that’s very interested in questions of class struggle or class formation, the kinds of things that Marxists used to talk about."

So I think Chibber is worried that people might think that PCT-SS replaces M. Chibber feels that this is not the case and that M still has some universal validity.

What worries him about PCT-SS is that it might incentivise academics to partipate in the dismantling of M because of the ... "excision of class oppression and class exploitation from the story. And postcolonial theory, because of its own excision of capitalism and class — because it downplays the dynamics of exploitation"

It is an interesting discussion.
posted by vicx at 10:34 AM on December 30, 2014 [3 favorites]


It seems like post-colonial studies and Chibber/Verso/NLB marxism are going to be in tension because they're trying to emphasize such different things. Post-colonial studies seems to be emphasizing discourse, who gets to speak, who gets to be an "expert", whether anyone is an expert at all, how to know things, what is a worthwhile subject of knowledge and who decides. Where as Chibber et al seem pretty confident that they know what they know, that they know who should speak, etc, and they take this knowledge as the ground for creating an economic analysis to lead to political action. I don't think "valid or not" can be decided without already having picked a side, kind of.

I tend to find post-colonial studies sort of more congenial because - just on a personal level - I tend to feel like the more I know, the less I know, and the cautious and "what can we know and who is 'we' anyway" approach sits a lot better with me.

I feel like there's also a question about just how much difference is enough and where difference is located. To take something I actually know about - there are all kinds of genders that exist(ed) outside of Western colonialism. To what degree can those genders and the understanding of the world in which they exist be subsumed under "these can be understood as a subset of queer and trans genders"? Do you basically break your analysis if you try to say that bakla people are trans? Why is it that we would never say that trans people are bakla? What effect does saying that two spirit and bakla and hijra and so on are all variants on one universal "trans" identity have on your politics and on the politics of the people in question? What is the purpose of creating the universal category - what does it aim to do?
posted by Frowner at 10:36 AM on December 30, 2014 [4 favorites]


(By "how much difference is enough" I mean "at what point do you say that this difference is significant enough to modulate your political theory" - how different does the one regions bourgeoisie have to be from another's before that's a difference that has to be incorporated into how one understands the bourgeoisie itself?)
posted by Frowner at 10:40 AM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


This is tangential but it is the first thing I thought of when I saw this post on PCT. Recently when reading statements from Chinese and Russian political leadership I have started to really notice how they seem to use Post-Colonial Theory to differentiate their governance from how it is done in the west. To paraphrase: Our methods of governance stem from our cultural history and the West has to recognise this.

An example of PCT in practice?
posted by vicx at 11:20 AM on December 30, 2014


RE: Subaltern/post-colonial studies, I think it's a valid criticism to ask whether the framework has provided a successful basis for organizing against economic oppression. It really hasn't. One can't just say that subaltern studies is limited to the academy, in that the last two generations of activist/organizers often come out of this tradition.

I like what Sunkara and co. are doing with Jacobin -- it's a glossy, attractive magazine that has successfully put radical, class-based critiques of capitalism into the mainstream discourse. Very important. Nonetheless, I often find myself a little frustrated with a wide swathe (though not all) of the self-defined Marxist Left. There has been an ongoing research program into the mechanics of financial capitalism, which draws from not only the Marxian tradition, but also the Keynesian and Institutionalist frameworks. Unfortunately, a lot of Marxists are isolated from this program and their analysis suffers accordingly. That's starting to change, though.
posted by wuwei at 11:21 AM on December 30, 2014 [4 favorites]


quoting George Smiley ...

"We are not so very different you and I. We both spend our lives looking for the weaknesses in each others systems. Don't you think it's time to recognize that there is as little worth on your side as there is on mine?"
posted by philip-random at 11:33 AM on December 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


To paraphrase: Our methods of governance stem from our cultural history and the West has to recognise this.

An example of PCT in practice?
More sort of a judo throw in that it uses the west's own orientalist assumptions against it. Ha ha you say we're different from you? Then don't complain if we don't buy your high falutin ideas about freedom and democracy; you said yourselves the orient is dictatorial.

Post Colonial Theorism can of course be abused in the service of this idea, but that's not what it tries to do, most of the time.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:16 PM on December 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


An example of PCT in practice?

This is exactly the door that PCT opens that Chibber wants to keep securely shut. That is, PCT re-introduces concepts that used to be labeled "Orientalism." Therefore, any leader of China, say, can argue, appealing to PCT: "We have the concept of Asian Values in our culture, a consciousness that has no parallel in the Western mind. Any attempt of you foreigners to naively lecture us about universal human rights is irredeemably racist and misunderstands the essence of our culture. Only a Chinese leader can understand such matters." Now no PCTer can rush to the Chinese people's defense when a, say, Tiananmen Square Massacre happens. After all, that is simply the process of ensuring Eastern harmony, and only looks lamentable from our presumptuous Western eyes, right?

Of course this attitude and philosophy doesn't just apply at the level of the state, but is often embraced by activists, NGO heads, etc. And for a good reason: it's a class politics that essentially says, "everyone must defer to me, the cultural expert, since no one else can possibly understand the complexity of what is going on here." It's an effective way of essentially discrediting any criticism without having to argue your case. Adolph Reed has talked a lot about this.

Post Colonial Theorism can of course be abused in the service of this idea, but that's not what it tries to do, most of the time.

Except the "abuse" of PCT follows from the same first principles as the good use of PCT, so AFAICT there's no way to reject this use on principle. Which is what Chibber finds so objectionable about it.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:25 PM on December 30, 2014 [6 favorites]


But the very fact that Orientalism exists suggests that the use of "These people are Not Western" in the service of power has nothing to do with the existence of post colonial theory. Claiming that the natives need a firm hand, or that democracy is all very well for the West but our people wouldn't like it or whatever well predates post-colonial theory and has been used by plenty of people who don't care about left theory of any stripe. Whites made use of this logic in the pre-Civil Rights US - that was the whole anti-reconstruction narrative, just for starters. Saying that this is on the head of post-colonial theory is like saying that election fraud in the 2000 elections disproves the whole idea of voting and is uniquely intrinsic to it.

I feel like there's a certain western triumphalism in the narrative about how those despots over there are using post-colonial theory...there's an assumed western standpoint about how we know what democracy/etc looks like, even if we don't really practice it, and we can decide in a disinterested manner what differences are legit. There's the assumption that there is this transcendent category of, hm, good governance or civic life or something, and we here have access to that category and deploy it correctly (again, even if we don't practice it), while those despots over there are just cynically using post-colonialist theory to get themselves off the hook of good governance.

And there's the assumption that there is a "disinterested Western subject" who somehow has the standing to issue a ruling on Tiananmen Square and is not at all implicated in the production of Tiananmen Square. Or the massacres in East Timor, or the rise of ISIS, etc. Those people off over there are insisting that they have the right to massacre their own people because political correctness, and that is mere ideology and has nothing to do with us.

And there's the assumption that non-Western leaders are the legit voices of their people - that if Deng Xiao-Ping authorizes the Tiananmen Square massacre by saying that it's communism with Chinese characteristics, etc, then there are no other arguments among Chinese people about Tiananmen Square. So therefore, if the Chinese leadership is making cynical self-serving arguments that means that this is the only use to which post-colonial theory can put.

And it seems to imply (in the style of the incredibly overrated memoir Coming Home Crazy, which is substantially about Not Trying To Find Out What Actual Chinese People Think About Tiananmen) that those Chinese people who don't go along with their post-colonial studies-tainted leaders must in their heart of hearts be western democrats whose understanding of Tiananmen is exactly what a Western observer's would be - meaningful difference doesn't really exist. There's no way for a Chinese person to be something besides a Western-style civic subject or a true believer in oriental despotisim a la Deng Xiao Ping.
posted by Frowner at 12:47 PM on December 30, 2014 [7 favorites]


One can critique the Tiananmen Square Massacre without being a uncritical apologist for Western culture, democracy, or whatever, regardless of who was responsible for it. In doing so one also doesn't need to take a position about whether the Chinese leadership is the legitimate voice of the people. One can simply state, appealing to universalisms about human rights, that killing peaceful political protesters is a morally outrageous act. Sure, Chinese people may have a different culture and values, etc., but don't they have the right to their own lives? Doesn't everyone?

Chibber would say yes, they do. But without appealing to some kind of universalism, unfortunately, one has no basis for critiquing the Massacre. A PCTer might (who knows, this is probably a pretty diverse field) argue that my assumption that Chinese people don't deserve to be killed is Eurocentric; that it doesn't incorporate an understanding of Confucian justice and instead imposes a racist Western notion of a hegemonic civic-subject. Well, I know which side of this debate I want to be on!

Orientalism does predate PCT, but that doesn't mean PCT can't contain Orientalism within it, albeit in superficially modified forms.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:18 PM on December 30, 2014 [3 favorites]


I think it's definitely true that the most common failure mode of PCT is Orientalism-with-the-moral-labels switched. It's presumably an easy paper to write, if nothing else.
posted by PMdixon at 1:57 PM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


A PCTer might (who knows, this is probably a pretty diverse field) argue that my assumption that Chinese people don't deserve to be killed is Eurocentric

A PCTer you just made up? This is not even close to an area of expertise for me but just based on the way I parse the arguments in this thread I think Frowner's point is more along the lines that quite a number of Chinese people seem to be able argue on their own that they don't deserve to be killed, and that they perhaps don't need us to do it for them. I'm not sure I think it's that simple because "Western" powers have to choose which Chinese people to listen to in making choices in their relationship to China but surely I don't need to explain the failure mode of "promoting democracy."

I think there are some real examples of the language of decolonization being used to promote ideas that do not align with the values of most people in this discussion, like homophobia in Jamaica. But there are also American Christian missionaries promoting homophobia in Uganda! And without pretending to know my stuff I would assume there are many entangled [X] Theory critiques of the relationship between the group of, say, QLGBT Jamaicans and their surrounding dominant culture.
posted by atoxyl at 2:14 PM on December 30, 2014 [2 favorites]


(I don't know as much about Jamaica but in India much of the homophobia, certainly the legal bits, can be traced back to the Raj. So what does it mean for beliefs to be authentic/autochthonous/"non-Western"?)
posted by PMdixon at 2:18 PM on December 30, 2014


So what does it mean for beliefs to be authentic/autochthonous/"non-Western"?

Well that's a very good question. And your point is very relevant. As I understand in Jamaica there's a prominent strain of thought that attacks homosexuality (and hetero oral or anal sex sex) as a foreign perversion. The particular example that was on my mind was the Shabba Ranks versionf of "Dem Bow" which links anti-authority, anti-colonial refusal to "bow" to a condemnation of those who "bow" in performing oral sex. But it's true that that Jamaica is a heavily Christian country and the homophobia may actually trace to colonial Christianity.
posted by atoxyl at 2:43 PM on December 30, 2014


So, like, is anyone interested in talking about the actual articles? Or did I miss the memo where this thread was set aside for free association about the words "Marxism" and "Jacobin"?


I like this thread, though I'm tempted to add that it seems like there's a lot of free association here about what "post-colonial" theory means, as well. (From this thread, it seems to connote some combination of straw-man post-modernism obscurantism/"relativism" with cultural studies and "identity politics.") Chibber's book has been marketed as an attack on post-colonial theory, but it largely does not respond to, say, Mamdani, Edward Said, Mbembe, Fanon, CLR James, Memmi, Dabashi, among others, and really focuses on just responding to a niche school--the subaltern studies group, most notably Chakrabarty.

I haven't read the book, though I remember reading that interview and a lot of the reviews when it first cameo out. The most useful, I think, was this blog post by CLR James scholar Chris Taylor, which is aptly titled "Not Even Marxist." The post is a model of lucidity (and humor!)--so much so that Verso put up a counter-attack on its blog. Taylor's response deserves to be read on its own, in its entirety, but here is an excerpt that may explain why a book marketed as taking on all post-colonialism, only treats a highly specific sect:

I think that Chibber is desperate for the resurgence of a particular kind of Marxism, one that was displaced not by postcolonial theorists but by anticolonial Marxists like Fanon, James, and so on. That’s why he can’t incorporate them into his account of postcolonial theory: they are Marxists who mount critiques of formalist universalisms by keeping close to the particular, by maintaining the tension that obtains between economic structure and lived phenomenology, between structuralist accounts of the world and hermeneutic investigations into worlds. I have no idea why one would wish to return to the days of CP sloganeering. (I can’t be the only one who heard echoes of “black and white, unite and fight!” in his book.) But the desire is there, and it shapes the way he constructs postcolonial theory. Chibber’s fantasy that an anti-Marxist postcolonial theory reigns hegemonic in the academy enables him to maintain the fantasy that the once and future king of Marxism might some day be restored to rule. But, in order to elaborate this fantasy, he needs to transform a tension internal to postcolonial theory (between Marxist accounts of structure and hermeneutic approaches to the particular—which can still be, of course, Marxist) into a struggle exterior to it.

(As super marxist Louis Proyect comments in Taylor's blog post, "I have big problems with any "Marxist" criticism that makes someone like Edward Said look counter-revolutionary.") A few more thoughts:

1. The Chibber vs PoCo debate has two axes. The Taylor post is largely on the Marxism side and it (and Chibber's book) may be of more interest for those who possess a 11th degree black belt in Marxism and strong opinions. I haven't read as many responses on the PoCo side, but one "famous" encounter was this debate between Chibber and Partha Chatterjee and Historical Materialism. (Forgive me if this has already been linked above.) Who you think one may depend on which side you are already on. A friend of mine who saw one Chibber debate told me, jubilantly, that he thought Chibber had been destroyed to the point that he had to admit he was actually a rights-based liberal, not a Marxist!

2. This debate has as its subtext, I think, both a nostalgia for an old-fashioned Marxism over two things--the first of them being a disdain of anti-oppression identitarian politics. My feeling is that the proper way would not focus on pedantic debates (Chatterjee's History A vs History B), but would constitute a positive politics that looked for a recoverable Marxist tradition in, say, Fanon, C.L.R. James/Grace Lee Boggs/Raya Dunayevskaya, Marxist development studies, intersectionalisty, etc.

3. The other intellectual trend that feels like it needs to be suppressed by Marxism is the culturalist turn of much post-colonial studies: the focus on representation and texts. While I have mixed feelings about this, this tradition need not be mutually exclusive with a critique more oriented on the base.

4. For me personally, I don't really care as much which side wins, because I can still just read the anti-colonial scholars who are doing work less oriented around subaltern studies (and in whose work it's worth mentioning, the anxiety about particular vs universalism is not terribly urgent)--for the example more straight forward colonial history, like Caroline Elkin's work on the British in Kenya, Timothy Mitchell, Marxist anti-imperial political economy (like Giovanni Arrighi), or writers who are sympathetic to culture but are even more particularlist than the PoCos, like Neil Lazarus.

5. A lot of this conversation here assumes post-colonial studies is about relativism and incommensurability. That is not necessarily the case (though it's quite an obsession in comparative philosophy and recent debates about world literature). A lot of post-colonial studies is still essentially an analysis of power and would be suspicious about attempts to present an orientalist essence as exempt from critique. I read this great journal article a few months ago about Chinese scholars are are trying to use "occidentalism" which some people in this thread might be interested in...

6. Marxism is often positioned in these conversations as more 'authentic,' more "real politics," than other forms of political discourse. But that seems hardly the case in practice: consider recent high-profile mobilizations (none of them really Marxist) like Occupy (born from South American anarchist horizontalism), Black Lives Matter protests (oriented from anti-racism), the Arab Spring, and the protests against the Iraq War, the largest in American history against an orientalist Imperial enterprise and surely influenced at least in part by the legacy of post-colonial writers like Edward Said. (I say this as someone who's spent the last few days reading Marxist theory!)
posted by johnasdf at 3:25 PM on December 30, 2014 [9 favorites]


as a theologian reading marxist theory is v v familar. i wish there was a way of talking intersectionally about wealth/class/the subaltern w/o raising the specter of marx, but even marxists who end up being really interesting about for example the body or problems of new markets kind of gets weirdly racist really quick, see McNally's monster's of the market, and i still wonder if Chibber makes these continual arguments that edge towards apologizing for late capital as a way of forcing euromarxists to talk about race?

Has Bhabba chipped in at all?
posted by PinkMoose at 4:44 PM on December 30, 2014


I wholeheartedly agree with you, Johnasdf. Great comment (and not just cause I agree!).

Therefore, any leader of China, say, can argue, appealing to PCT: "We have the concept of Asian Values in our culture, a consciousness that has no parallel in the Western mind. Any attempt of you foreigners to naively lecture us about universal human rights is irredeemably racist and misunderstands the essence of our culture. Only a Chinese leader can understand such matters." Now no PCTer can rush to the Chinese people's defense when a, say, Tiananmen Square Massacre happens. After all, that is simply the process of ensuring Eastern harmony, and only looks lamentable from our presumptuous Western eyes, right?

I think this is a super-problematic example, Noisy Pink Bubbles because, actually, the CCP and others routinely issue this kind of excuse, and PCT and non-PCT alike are happy to condemn them for both act, and excuse-making.

As John, notes above, a lot of post-colonial theorists are not primarily engaged with their work by means of moral or cultural relativism. My own experience/reading is more on the international development end of this area, and it's no doubt colouring my own response but I'm very very wary of people - outsiders especially - espousing universalism when it comes to development.

The flip side of your example is to pretend that there's no difference between Chinese and Anglo, and others. Which is clearly ridiculous.

I am in no way qualified to assess his broader criticisisms of the SubAltern theory, but I do feel that he has inflated its role, influence and position in Development Theory and Post-Colonialist Theory to a large degree. It's a huge, super-heterogeneous field these days, with tonnes of cross-discipline research and academics. I can't help but feel he is, if not tilting at windmills, really trying his damndest to condemn a large number of people through the actions of a few. I can't help feeling, when he talks about the prominence of PCT, he's talking about its prominence as it relates to his own particular brand and practice of Marxism. I dunno, I get a little bit of a piss-competition vibe from all this.
posted by smoke at 6:13 PM on December 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


tl;dr I take huge issue with the core assumptions of his argument, as summarised by this passage from his interview in Jacobin:

In recent decades, postcolonial theory has largely displaced Marxism as the dominant perspective among intellectuals engaged in the project of critically examining the relationship between the Western and non-Western worlds. .

Btw, great post.
posted by smoke at 6:16 PM on December 30, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yeah, he really just needs to look up the island to Columbia, where Sheldon Pollock reigns.
posted by PMdixon at 6:20 PM on December 30, 2014


Marxism is often positioned in these conversations as more 'authentic,' more "real politics," than other forms of political discourse.

Yes, marxism is a totalising ideology that has always had the promise built in that if you use it correctly, it let's you see through the ideological constructs and faux realities capitalism throws up to the actual reality underneath, which posits the class struggle as the root cause and sole explenation of all oppression.

(A bit overstated of course.)

And the main challenge marxism has always had, is not just that it has had to prove that it could make good on this promise, but rather that its central premisse, that class is behind everything, is the defining factor in all struggles against oppression, that it is the universal identifier trumping all other forms of identifying (nationality, ethnicity, gender, race, sexuality, etc.).

The moment you reject this assumption and treat class as just one of a range of possible ways to identify yourself, not necessarily even the most important one, marxism is in trouble.

And this is why post colonial theory and other post-marxist theories are looked at so suspiciously by marxists, because they do deny that central role class is supposed to play and dare suggest other things may be more important.

Which is of course why these theories can be helpfull for local elites and capitalists, to both distinguish themselves from the foreign oppressor and reject the challenge of the working classes for political power.

For honest marxists meanwhile, this challenge to the central role of class and how to fit in intersectionality in marxism is the greatest struggle marxism has to deal with, and has been ever since, well, Marx himself.
posted by MartinWisse at 5:20 AM on December 31, 2014 [3 favorites]


Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's hard to focus on the top if the base is being undermined.
posted by vicx at 3:12 AM on January 1, 2015


One wonders how long it will take modern academia to actually get beyond Marx. A depressingly long time, apparently.
posted by koeselitz at 1:16 PM on January 1, 2015


The solution is to destroy academia; but you don't need to involve yourself in that. It's already well underway.
posted by vicx at 2:15 AM on January 2, 2015


« Older Why 2015 Won't Suck   |   The Benefits of Being Cold Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments