World Lit, Literary Analysis

Note: You’ll find that these themes are all interconnected to form a larger web. I’ve discussed them separately as best I can, but I encourage you to take a peek at several, if not all, when you’re thinking about a theme for analysis. Every theme informs every other theme.

Identity

Identity is, of course, the way a person sees himself or herself. This is a huge category, including a person’s perceived role in society, a person’s sense of their own value, and specific factors like ethnicity, nationality, and personality traits. For postcolonial theory, identity is extremely complex. In colonial relationships, the colonizer uses the colonized to define its identity. For example, for the European colonist, Europe is whatever Africa isn’t, whatever Asia isn’t, and so on. The Other becomes crucial for self-definition, helping the colonizer draw boundaries to shape their own self-image.

On the other hand, the othered group can experience a significant disruption in (or even loss of) identity as a result of contact with a colonizer. This sometimes means that colonized people internalize the idea that they are “less than” because an outside group is placing itself above them. The way the colonizing power sees them becomes the way they see themselves. Rather than feeling proud of or strongly identifying with their cultural traditions, they may begin to feel ashamed of those traditions. This can affect how indigenous people feel about their appearance, their religion, their family structure, their knowledge—all of these elements are important for identity. It's important to remember that this can happen whether the colonizer is "good" or not. The colonial powers can have the best intentions, but tucked away in the colonial process is this hierarchy: if the colonized needs help from the colonizer, they must be less than the colonizer. Even if the colonizer gives practical, useful, genuinely good help, there's still a disruption of identity. For both the colonized and the colonizer, the strengthening or blurring of identity can happen on an individual level, a national level, and every level in between.

Postcolonial theorists are interested in (a) the ways that colonizers shape their own identity through colonialism; (b) the ways that colonized people try to maintain their identities and resist negative effects in colonization; (c) the ways that formerly colonized people construct a national identity after gaining independence; and (d) the ways that people raised among different (or even competing) cultures must reconcile those cultural differences within their identity (called hybridity).

Analyzing identity in literature means explaining how identity may be in flux in a story, as well as how that relates to colonization. What are the consequences for colonized and colonizer? Who benefits from these consequences? What do they serve?

Otherness

Otherness can be thought of as the quality of being an Other. It’s the quality of being different, of not belonging, of being labeled an outsider, of being pushed to the margins of a culture. This isn’t just a surface-level difference—rather, it’s being labeled as fundamentally foreign. You might also run into the word othering, which means “the process of labeling a person or group as an Other.” (If you run across the term alterity in outside reading, it is more or a less a synonym for otherness.)

As you can imagine, this category involves a lot. The label of Other can mean that a person is treated as (a) an object of pity that needs instruction and help to be brought into the dominant or “civilized” group or (b) an object of fear and disgust that should be continually shunned and excluded. For scholar Homi Bhabha, the Other is stuck in the impossible position of being regarded in both ways at the same time: an Other can be taught to mimic and outwardly adopt the colonizer’s way of life, but that will always be seen on some level as an act. He explains how colonized groups who begin to mimic colonizers end up being “almost the same, but not quite” (Bhabha, 2004, p. 123). Bhabha argues that, whether the dominant group is aware of this, an othered person or group is set up to fail because they cannot truly be welcomed and accepted as equal to the colonizer. After all, what happens when the Other is no longer the Other? How would the dominant group be able to define itself?

Another aspect of otherness is that the differences behind the label don’t necessarily reflect reality. That is, the Other might not actually have any of the behaviors or beliefs that the dominant group says they do. It may be that those behaviors or beliefs are simply stereotypes, characteristics that apply to some but not all members of a group. Otherness means that people can end up being defined by the fears or assumptions of the dominant group rather than by what they actually do or believe.

Examining otherness includes analyzing how and why the us/Other boundary is maintained. How are the labels reinforced? What is at stake for the dominant group? What burdens does otherness create for those who are excluded?

Bhabha, H. (2004). The location of culture. Routledge.

Race

Race is an obvious but important theme for postcolonial theory. Race can be used as unifying factor in colonization, usually in the sense of uniting one race against another. Often in colonization, indigenous people are lumped into one racial category by colonizers, ignoring differences in ethnicity. For example, Heart of Darkness is set in the Congo, which has hundreds of ethnic groups, but these ethnic/cultural differences are not acknowledged in the storytelling.

Postcolonial theorists are also very interested in how cultural meanings can be attached to race. When looking at literature, they might investigate the ways that internal characteristics are culturally associated with external characteristics like race. For example, how are racial differences in the literature conflated with differences in how educated, intelligent, hardworking, reasonable, or “civilized” people are? It’s important to note that these dynamics can be seen in the relationship between colonizers and indigenous people, but they can also be seen among colonized people, who could create their own racial hierarchies and assign their own cultural meanings to racial difference. It is also possible, of course, that the literature is critiquing and resisting these race-based labels.

Analyzing race in literature means investigating how race functions as a point of difference or unity. To what extent is the oppression or labeling in the story connected to perceptions of race? How is racial difference portrayed in the literature, and what importance is it given? It’s important not just to find examples, but also to draw conclusions about what message the writing sends through those examples.

Class

Like race, class is a category of difference. Class relationships are very similar to us/Other relationships because people in a different social class are by definition outside of one's own social grouping.

In the postcolonial era, after former colonies gained independence from colonial powers, class systems emerged that were deeply tied to colonial history. For instance, some class difference in former colonies is connected to religious or racial differences that may have played a significant role in the colonial era. In the literature, look for ways that class differences could be the result of colonization.

Also, class distinctions are sometimes part how colonizers justify colonization, or how powerful people justify the continuation of their power. This is usually based on the colonizers’ belief in inherent and “correct” method for dividing people into different social classes. How are the different social classes defined, as depicted in the text? How might being of a “higher class” grant people power?

Of course, an author could be criticizing or resisting class distinctions. What is the ultimate message about class in the literature, and how does that relate to colonial relationships and colonial practices?

Language

In postcolonial analysis, investigating the theme of language does not mean looking at the imagery or tone of writing. These are features of language, of course, and they are important to note in an analysis, but we also want to focus on the broader concept of language as a part of culture. Language is a significant theme in postcolonial theory in part because the language of the colonizing power is given a special privilege over indigenous language. In colonization, indigenous peoples are sometimes taught to regard their own languages as inferior to the colonizer’s language. Because language plays such a massive role in how we experience, interpret, and interact with the world, the importance of language really cannot be overstated. Applying at the theme of language means identifying what language practices are portrayed in the writing.

Obviously, everything we will read for the term will be in English. This is an issue of practicality because English is our shared language in the class, but it’s no accident that a lot of literature by formerly colonized people is written in English. (To be clear, some of our readings are translated into English rather than being originally written in English.) English is the language that many, many colonized people inherited as a result of colonization. The often painful history behind the widespread use of English can make for very complicated relationships to the language. In the process of colonization, how are colonized people taught to regard their own language? For those a generation or two removed from colonization, how do they regard the indigenous language as well as English? Especially later in the term, we’ll see indigenous languages mixed in with English in several stories. For the theme of language, look for the way that each author chooses to use language—what is translated, what is not translated, and what seems to be the ultimate message of those choices?

The absence of a shared language between a colonial power and a colonizer can make nuanced communication impossible, which has a wide variety of effects for both groups. Does the literature include depictions of teaching or learning languages? What is the “right” language to use? How does language help colonizers maintain control? How does language help people resist colonization? All of these questions are important for analysis.

Oppression

There are many different forms of oppression that appear in the literature we'll cover, some more obvious than others. Slavery is a clear example of this theme, but it's also important to be attentive to more subtle forms of physical, emotional, or social oppression. For example, in the us/Other relationship, the “us” generally insists on speaking for the “Other” instead of letting the othered person or group have their own voice and control their own destiny. For postcolonial theorists, this silencing can be considered a form of oppression.

Examining oppression in the literature means asking how it was allowed to begin. What initially justified the oppression? Since it began, how has it been able to continue? One way to think of oppression is as a cycle: oppression begets oppression. Postcolonial scholars like Frantz Fanon identify the effect that oppression can have on those who experience it, pointing out how oppressed people internalize oppression to ultimately see themselves as worthy of negative treatment. This can ultimately separate an oppressed person from power, keeping them at the bottom of the hierarchy indefinitely. Is this depicted in the literature? What other effects are portrayed by the author?

It’s quite easy to find examples of oppression, but analyzing oppression means going well beyond pointing out examples. Consider this enormous question: what role does oppression play in colonial relationships or us/Other relationships?

Some of our literature will have a more pointed message about oppression, seeking to criticize, complicate, and ultimately resist it. What is the particular context for that resistance, and how might an author be advocating for the end of oppression in the story?

Suppression

Suppression is similar to oppression in the effects it can have on the less powerful person or group. Suppression takes place in colonial relationships when the colonized people are made to suppress their own traditions and cultural practices to conform to the colonizers’ way of life. This often means that the voice of othered people/groups is silenced, limiting or perhaps eliminating their power and influence.

When most of us imagine suppressing thoughts or behaviors in ourselves, the reasoning is usually that the thoughts or behaviors are inferior, unacceptable, or even dangerous. By the same token, when the Other is encouraged to suppress something, this involves a subtle or not-so-subtle message that the thought or behavior is inferior, unacceptable, or dangerous. How does this process affect both the people who are suppressed and those who are doing the suppressing? How are they made to feel about their respective ways of life? Specifically, what do colonized people gain by suppression, and what do they lose?

The writer Albert Memmi (1991) addresses the consequences of suppression in his book The Colonizer and the Colonized: “The most serious blow suffered by the colonized is being removed from history and from the community” (p. 91). Many postcolonial scholars are interested in how the suppression of indigenous traditions and beliefs leads to a kind of erasure of indigenous peoples. Is this aspect of suppression visible in the literature? This is also connected to the way suppression enables colonization to continue. An analysis of this theme involves looking deeply at those connections to make broader conclusions about suppression and colonization.

Think about how the literature may also be advocating for the end of suppression. What is the context, and how is this message apparent in the story?

Memmi, A. (1991). The colonizer and the colonized. Beacon.

Hybridity

Hybridity is very related to identity. Essentially, hybridity is the mixture of more than one cultural perspective or worldview. It can be seen in individual people as well as in groups of people. These different worldviews are often in opposition, and thus difficult for the individual or group to reconcile. For example, a person from an indigenous group who is born and raised in a European colony may internalize the values and beliefs of the colonial power as well as those of the indigenous tradition. This makes for a hybrid identity that may involve internal conflict. Another form of hybridity can be seen in, for instance, the Caribbean. The colonial era saw Europeans bringing enslaved people into the Caribbean, resulting in a great deal of ethnic and cultural diversity. As one of the effects of colonization, this hybridity has meant many advantages and disadvantages.

Analyzing hybridity as a theme means considering how different cultures are mixed together, and what effects that has on those who exist at the intersection. Which aspects are particularly challenging—language, religion, social customs, etc.? Which cultural tradition is “correct,” and to what extent is somebody pressured to choose? For some scholars (Homi Bhabha, for example), hybridity is a way to overcome the effects of colonization by denying the idea that one way of life should be treated as worthwhile. However, there are obviously many ways to view this theme. What message do you see in the text?

This is not a 1:1 situation, but it may be useful here to consider the words of Jhumpa Lahiri (2006), an Indian-American who was born in London and moved to America at the age of two. In “My Two Lives,” she writes: According to my parents I was not American, nor would I ever be no matter how hard I tried. I felt doomed by their pronouncement, misunderstood and gradually defiant. In spite of the first lessons of arithmetic, one plus one did not equal two but zero, my conflicting selves always canceling each other out… As I approach middle age, one plus one equals two, both in my work and in my daily existence. The traditions on either side…dwell in me like siblings, still occasionally sparring, one outshining the other depending on the day. But like siblings they are intimately familiar with one another, forgiving and intertwined.

In the literature, is hybridity portrayed in a positive or negative light? How is this part of the author’s message about colonization?

Lahiri, J. (2006, March 6). My two lives. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/my-two-lives- 106355

Imperialism

Imperialism can be tricky because of its broad definition. Of course, imperialism includes the literal practice of one country taking control of and absorbing another geographic region to expand its own power and influence. We will see many references to this form of imperialism in our readings for the term, but we will also see depictions of “softer” forms of imperialism. In any circumstance where one culture has more power than another culture, the dominant culture’s values and traditions have a way of creeping into the less powerful culture. It’s important to remember that, while imperialism can have serious negative effects, it certainly does not have to be a malicious enterprise. As a matter of fact, “cultural imperialism” can even include how Western fast food chains have expanded into cities like Kyoto, Japan. So, some forms of imperialism are more or less the natural result of uneven cultural influence, while others are a much more intentional or even odious assertion of power.

Whichever form of imperialism is depicted in the literature, it can be thought of as the result of uneven power relationships. Given this pattern, analyzing imperialism means considering what circumstances helped create those power relationships in the first place. How was one culture able to heavily influence or even overtake the other? Does the literature depict this?

Because postcolonial theory is also concerned with the process former colonies go through to gain independence, an analysis of this theme could also involve examining how a newly independent people can build a separate identity and “reverse” the results of imperialism. In literature that depicts this process, how do people go about undoing the work of imperialism? Is it possible? It could be worthwhile to unpack whatever message about this may be below the surface in the writing.

Being “civilized” or “uncivilized”

The single most important thing to remember for this theme is that postcolonial theorists do not take these labels at face value. For a postcolonial analysis, we are expected—as best we can—to set aside our own cultural understanding of what is "civilized" or "uncivilized." This is not to say that theorists find it absolutely wrong or problematic to categorize or evaluate behavior; this is merely to say that exploring the why and how of these labels means approaching them as objectively as possible. After all, who would consider their own behavior to be uncivilized? This is part of why the labels are worth investigating in the first place.

In the literature that we’ll read this term, there will always be a person or group who is labeled “uncivilized.” Generally, if the writing is from the viewpoint of the colonizer, the literature will present these labels as accurate. If the writing is from the viewpoint of the colonized, the literature will often show how these labels are misapplied. An analysis for this theme means considering how the author approaches these labels, and how they are tools to either justify or critique the colonial process. It’s notable that this label is usually not just given to an individual person, but to an entire group of people.

Analyzing literature means closely examining specific word choice. So, it’s worthwhile to think about what words like “uncivilized,” “savage,” and “barbaric” actually mean, as well as what real-world consequences they may have. In terms of connotation, these words are associated with the idea of being animalistic or less than human. This means that those who are “uncivilized” get placed below those who are “civilized” on the scale of humanity. Regardless of whether the labeler has kind or commendable intentions, the connotation still ought to be considered in an analysis. When a colonizer uses these terms, it’s like they are saying, “Hey, this person needs to be taught how to live like a real human being, and I’m just the person for the job!” Related to this, how does labeling a person or group as “Other” imply that the person or group is less civilized?

When you explore this theme, there are several useful questions. How are these labels applied or possibly misapplied? How might the story make the reader question the definitions of "civilized" and "uncivilized"? How do these labels hurt or help people, in a practical or outward sense or in a personal or inward sense? What does all of this ultimately say about colonial relationships?

Diaspora

Diaspora refers to people being displaced from their home country/region or migrating from their home country/region by choice. In either scenario, it implies a larger-scale movement and dispersion of indigenous peoples. Although postcolonial theory tends to focus on diaspora as a result of colonization (or decolonization), it can also be thought of as a result of more modern economic scenarios like migrant labor. Scholars identify and analyze particular instances of diaspora, such as the “Irish diaspora” or “Muslim diaspora.”

This theme raises questions about what it means to belong to a place or culture. Analyzing diaspora involves picking apart the various causes of a movement or displacement as well as exploring its effects. It can mean investigating the concept of assimilation: why/how people assimilate, what that choice represents, or the extent to which it’s a choice at all. This theme relates strongly to identity and hybridity since one of the main questions is how people do (or do not) maintain the cultural practices and identities of their home while in a new place. People may embrace the new culture, reject the new culture, merge the two cultures, or any combination. As you can imagine, there are loads of factors involved in how people respond to displacement both as groups and as individuals.

Several questions about homelands and borders can also guide an analysis of this theme. What role does the concept of a “homeland” play in unifying or dividing groups of people? What role do borders play in sectioning off peoples and cultures? What happens for those who exist on both literal and metaphorical borders?

Globalization

This is a term that people throw around a lot without necessarily defining it. In general terms, globalization refers to the increasing exchange of ideas of both goods and ideas within the international community. It’s the idea that the world has become smaller and that we have more intercultural communication and trade. Globalization often denotes international exchange and influence in a business sense, but it operates on a more fundamental cultural level as well.

For postcolonial theory, globalization can come in as a theme with regards to how colonizing and decolonizing other countries has paved the way for a globalized world. How do the relationship dynamics shift once a colony gains independence? For instance, former colonies can still be economically dependent on their former colonizers. A central point of debate is whether globalization represents a shift toward a “flatter,” more equal world, or whether globalization represents a continuation of economic inequality. Postcolonial scholars point out that countries that grew wealthier and more influential through a history of colonialism end up having an edge in a globalized world. In this way, the theme of globalization is linked to the theme of imperialism.

With cultural exchange, globalization can also mean that people come to see themselves as “citizens of the world” rather than primarily citizens of a particular country. People more often work, study, and live in foreign countries, which affects their relationship with their home country/culture as well as their attitude toward the broader world. What’s lost and gained in that trend? Furthermore, cultural exchange exists alongside economic exchange: consider how Hollywood films export “American culture” (a slippery term!) while at the same time selling a product. In that context, globalization has meant that blockbuster films are scripted, cast, and shot with a global audience in mind, integrating characters or settings from the largest foreign markets (China, for instance) to increase appeal and ticket sales within those regions. This weaves a tangled web of cultural influence and exchange.

Kiser 2020