The plague and privilege of Homi Bhabha

It is not difficult to establish the postcolonial critic as another proponent of Western Imperialism, especially when the critic chooses to ignore the vast economic inequalities inherent to the global capitalist system. Homi Bhabha (left) reflects a certain, albeit dominant trend in theory; that is, the poststructuralist method of textual deconstruction, epitomised by Derrida’s infamous words, there is nothing outside the text. By eschewing all knowledge outside of the text, Homi Bhabha creates a complex web of spectacular ideas which reflect spectacular society itself; that is, in Bhabha’s theoretical practice, words replace images in concealing the actually existing effects of global capitalism. By practicing theory which purports to undermine, disrupt and transform objective rationale whilst ignoring material and cultural asymmetries between the metropolitan and non-metropolitan academies, Homi Bhabha (re)produces the power-knowledge equation Western discourse has traditionally produced on the non-Western Other.

The type of contingency and relativism typical of Bhabha is reflected in Ziauddin Sardar's understanding of postmodernism, which he appropriately defines as being the newest form of Western Imperialism. With its multifaceted and pluralistic character, argues Sardar, postmodernism is used by its 'champions and apologists to mystify it; to present it as a pragmatic, intellectual force that cannot be fathomed, let alone resisted'. Yet the very notion of postmodern cultural synthesis, argues Sardar, 'should be seen as a logical step in the process of the westernisation of the globe, and universalisation of western civilisation itself'. Synthesis, he argues, can only occur between two 'equally powerful cultures which are equally represented on the global stage'. Instead, cultural synthesis implies the need for pluralism yet produces a 'binary system of regulation (post-cold war, the new super-demon is Islam)... [whilst simultaneously] generating a simulated plurality which veils the continuity in oppression and inequality'.

By championing pluralism and promoting synthesis, whilst at the same time ignoring the socio-economic order and the aggressive neo-liberal policies which fundamentally construct the postmodern economy, Homi Bhabha implicitly positions himself as supportive of the West as power-bloc. As Sardar argues, the postmodern world is being 'built by the mass media... [whilst] The glue that binds it all together... [is] the postmodern economy'. The postmodern media and postmodern economy work together in conjunction, producing the spectacular, whilst Homi Bhabha's own power-knowledge equation (re)produces postmodern society in theoretical form.

Of course, the problem of asymmetric ignorance and academic hegemony is not exclusive to Postcolonial discourse. All repressed and minority groups are in a constant struggle to integrate themselves into the theoretical canon, yet in doing so, such integration inevitably means conforming to a certain set of rules and regulations, however liberating the practice might appear. This is not to condemn all theory or even the practice of theory; rather, it is an attempt to point out that power-knowledge equations (re)produce themselves through the actually existing material and cultural inequalities inherent to the neo-colonial world order.

It is only through reflecting on self privilege, produced by economic and thus cultural advantages, juxtaposed with an advert self-criticism, that critics in Western academies can overcome the grounds of opposition inherent to the metropolitan and non-metropolitan academies. Less of Derrida and more of Fanon, please. For Bhabha and his minions, I think a rereading of Black Skin, White Masks is in order.