1. From Colonialism to Colonial Discourse Pgs 20-43 of Loomba

2. Marxism and colonialism Marxism Marxism Claims that capitalism and colonialism are necessary steps on the way to communism. Claims that capitalism and colonialism are necessary steps on the way to communism. Claims that money and commodities begin to stand in for human relations and for human beings, objectifying them and robbing them of their human essence. Claims that money and commodities begin to stand in for human relations and for human beings, objectifying them and robbing them of their human essence.

3. Aime Cesaire b. Martinique 1913: poet, politician, philosopher -- makes this an anti colonial statement by claiming that colonialism exploits, dehumanizes and objectifies the colonial subject, as well as degrading the colonizer. -- colonization = thingification

4. Franz Fanon b. 1925 Martinique: psychologist, philosopher The other important factor in colonial discourse is race. Whereas, for Marx, the dividing line was class, for Fanon and other colonial scholars, class and race were intimately connected. The other important factor in colonial discourse is race. Whereas, for Marx, the dividing line was class, for Fanon and other colonial scholars, class and race were intimately connected. The issue is more complicated than this, however, because in Europe, whiteness and wealth were not the same thing. There were poor whites; the lower classes were white. The issue is more complicated than this, however, because in Europe, whiteness and wealth were not the same thing. There were poor whites; the lower classes were white.

5. Ideology Our mental frameworks, our beliefs, concepts and ways of expressing our relationship with the world. Our mental frameworks, our beliefs, concepts and ways of expressing our relationship with the world. Marx and Engles – ideology is a distorted or false consciousness of the world which disguises people’s real relationship to their world. So, capitalists, the dominant social class, convince workers that hard work will land them in heaven. This belief persuades the workers to keep on working and blinds them to the truth of their exploitation by the upper class. Marx and Engles – ideology is a distorted or false consciousness of the world which disguises people’s real relationship to their world. So, capitalists, the dominant social class, convince workers that hard work will land them in heaven. This belief persuades the workers to keep on working and blinds them to the truth of their exploitation by the upper class. Marx contrasts ideology with science, which has the capacity to cut through our illusions. Marx contrasts ideology with science, which has the capacity to cut through our illusions.

6. Georg Lukacs b. 1895, Hungary: philosopher Lukacs uses this difference between ideology and science to establish a way for rebellion to occur. The validity or falsity of an ideology depends upon which class you belong to. If you belong to the bourgeoisie, then you “believe” in the ideology of capitalism. If, however, you are a member of the proletariat, then you are capable of a more ‘scientific’ view, which allows you to see the situation more clearly, to understand how the bourgeoisie oppress you in order to bolster their own economic status. Lukacs uses this difference between ideology and science to establish a way for rebellion to occur. The validity or falsity of an ideology depends upon which class you belong to. If you belong to the bourgeoisie, then you “believe” in the ideology of capitalism. If, however, you are a member of the proletariat, then you are capable of a more ‘scientific’ view, which allows you to see the situation more clearly, to understand how the bourgeoisie oppress you in order to bolster their own economic status.

7. Problem This is, of course, more complicated than it looks, as well, because a class is not a homogenous group. The lower classes are made up of people of different races, genders, ages, languages, cultures, sexual orientations, and all these differences will create different interpretations of the ideology and different ‘scientific’ views. This is, of course, more complicated than it looks, as well, because a class is not a homogenous group. The lower classes are made up of people of different races, genders, ages, languages, cultures, sexual orientations, and all these differences will create different interpretations of the ideology and different ‘scientific’ views.

8. Antonio Gramsci b. 1891 Italy: journalist, philosopher Gramsci says that there are different kinds of ideologies, in particular economic and cultural ideologies, and that these ideologies can be conflicted. But somehow, one or the other comes to dominate, to control people’s actions. Gramsci explains this through his concept of hegemony – power achieved through a combination of coercion and consent. The ruling classes create subjects who ‘willingly’ submit to being ruled. The dominant class plays with the notion of common sense to gently or invisibly coerce. Gramsci says that there are different kinds of ideologies, in particular economic and cultural ideologies, and that these ideologies can be conflicted. But somehow, one or the other comes to dominate, to control people’s actions. Gramsci explains this through his concept of hegemony – power achieved through a combination of coercion and consent. The ruling classes create subjects who ‘willingly’ submit to being ruled. The dominant class plays with the notion of common sense to gently or invisibly coerce.

9. Problem One problem here, in terms of colonization, is that the coercion wasn’t gentle or invisible, it was in fact, harsh and quite public. But, colonial theorists say that this more violent type of coercion in colonial situations was accompanied by a more subtle coercion that stressed the incorporation and transformation of the ideas and practices of the colonizers, rather than their imposition from above. One problem here, in terms of colonization, is that the coercion wasn’t gentle or invisible, it was in fact, harsh and quite public. But, colonial theorists say that this more violent type of coercion in colonial situations was accompanied by a more subtle coercion that stressed the incorporation and transformation of the ideas and practices of the colonizers, rather than their imposition from above.

10. Louis Althusser b. 1918, France: philosopher Explored how ideologies are internalized, how socially determined views seem to be spontaneously expressed by people. Explored how ideologies are internalized, how socially determined views seem to be spontaneously expressed by people. He worked with Gramsci’s idea that we are both coerced and consenting in our acceptance of ideology. He believed that Repressive State Apparatuses – the army, the police – are in charge of the former, while Ideological State Apparatuses – church, school, family, media, political systems – shape our consent. These ISA “assist in the reproduction of the dominant system by creating subjects who are ideologically conditioned to accept the values of the system. He worked with Gramsci’s idea that we are both coerced and consenting in our acceptance of ideology. He believed that Repressive State Apparatuses – the army, the police – are in charge of the former, while Ideological State Apparatuses – church, school, family, media, political systems – shape our consent. These ISA “assist in the reproduction of the dominant system by creating subjects who are ideologically conditioned to accept the values of the system. One of the problems with this idea is that it doesn’t allow for ways that, or reasons that struggle and opposition to dominant ideologies occur. One of the problems with this idea is that it doesn’t allow for ways that, or reasons that struggle and opposition to dominant ideologies occur.

11. Michel Foucault b. 1926, France: philosopher Foucault, too, believed that humans are not entirely free, that they are shaped by their surroundings. He believed that there is a certain “code of knowledge” that determines how we shape our ideas. Individuals do not ‘come up with ideas,’ ideas are the result of these codes of knowledge, created by systems of discourse. Foucault, too, believed that humans are not entirely free, that they are shaped by their surroundings. He believed that there is a certain “code of knowledge” that determines how we shape our ideas. Individuals do not ‘come up with ideas,’ ideas are the result of these codes of knowledge, created by systems of discourse.

12. Discourse A discourse is the system of rules and procedures that create any kind of reality. Foucault studied the discourse of madness and the discourse of prisons. He decided that once a discourse has been articulated, it governs not only what is said or not said, but how it is said, what is considered to be logical or not logical, what is acceptable or not acceptable. A discourse is the field or domain within which language and ideas are manipulated in certain ways. We talk today about the discourse of gender studies, the discourse of child rearing, we have a diet discourse, there is a discourse used in higher education. And, of course, there is postcolonial discourse. A discourse is the system of rules and procedures that create any kind of reality. Foucault studied the discourse of madness and the discourse of prisons. He decided that once a discourse has been articulated, it governs not only what is said or not said, but how it is said, what is considered to be logical or not logical, what is acceptable or not acceptable. A discourse is the field or domain within which language and ideas are manipulated in certain ways. We talk today about the discourse of gender studies, the discourse of child rearing, we have a diet discourse, there is a discourse used in higher education. And, of course, there is postcolonial discourse.

13. More on Discourse Once a discourse has been established, according to Foucault, it is difficult for people to think outside of the discourse, people become interpellated by the discourse. We become embroiled in several fields of discourse in our lives, the discourse of marriage, the discourse of sexuality, the discourse of mobility, the discourse of environmentalism, the discourse of entertainment, the discourse of patriarchy, etc. Everything is a discourse:

14. History as Discourse History is a discourse, a construct that historians participate in and whose rules they follow. There is no “truth,” only the truth of the discourse that you currently happen to be participating in. A text doesn’t carry any certain culture or meaning, we only interpret it in a certain way because of the discourse in which we participate. Certain patterns or behaviors or expectations are set up as normal within these discourses and we learn to accept and to act with in those boundaries.

15. Panopticon http://cartome.org/panopticon1.htm http://cartome.org/panopticon1.htm "Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. To achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much, because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. "Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. So to arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers. To achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much, because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable.

16. Panopticon Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so. In order to make the presence or absence of the inspector unverifiable, so that the prisoners, in their cells, cannot even see a shadow, Bentham envisaged not only venetian blinds on the windows of the central observation hall, but, on the inside, partitions that intersected the hall at right angles and, in order to pass from one quarter to the other, not doors but zig-zag openings; for the slightest noise, a gleam of light, a brightness in a half-opened door would betray the presence of the guardian. The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen." Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so. In order to make the presence or absence of the inspector unverifiable, so that the prisoners, in their cells, cannot even see a shadow, Bentham envisaged not only venetian blinds on the windows of the central observation hall, but, on the inside, partitions that intersected the hall at right angles and, in order to pass from one quarter to the other, not doors but zig-zag openings; for the slightest noise, a gleam of light, a brightness in a half-opened door would betray the presence of the guardian. The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen."

17. Problem Foucault writes that “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” We are so inculcated into accepted patterns of behavior and belief by the discourses that surround us, that the power of discourse is pervasive. We can’t escape it. Foucault writes that “Power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” We are so inculcated into accepted patterns of behavior and belief by the discourses that surround us, that the power of discourse is pervasive. We can’t escape it. How does change occur then, how do people rebel, if they can’t think outside the box of the discourse in which they are interpellated, positioned, and shaped? How does change occur then, how do people rebel, if they can’t think outside the box of the discourse in which they are interpellated, positioned, and shaped?