Literature the Journal of Commonwealth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Journal of Commonwealth Literature http://jcl.sagepub.com/ The New Cartographies of Re-Orientalism Minoli Salgado The Journal of Commonwealth Literature 2011 46: 199 DOI: 10.1177/0021989411404988 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jcl.sagepub.com/content/46/2/199 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for The Journal of Commonwealth Literature can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jcl.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jcl.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav >> Version of Record - Jun 27, 2011 What is This? Downloaded from jcl.sagepub.com at STELLA MARIS COLG on April 22, 2013 The New Cartographies of Re-Orientalism The New Cartographies of Re-Orientalism Minoli Salgado University of Sussex, Falmer, UK Abstract This paper explores the concept of Re-Orientalism by evaluating contrasting uses of the term, examining their implications and revealing the way they mark ongoing contestations over cultural legitimacy and authority. I explore some of the connections between Re-Orientalism and Graham Huggan’s postcolonial exoticism and propose an inclusive working definition of Re-Orientalism that I put to the test in an evaluation of Michael Ondaatje’s Running in the Family and Christopher Ondaatje’s The Man-Eater of Punanai. I suggest that “Re-Orientalism” marks a re- orientation of discursive authorization symptomatic of deep anxieties over cultural legitimacy. At its most radical, I argue, such a re-orientation can prompt a profound revaluation of the position of the diasporic and national subject in ways that provoke productive dialogue between them; at its most reactionary, I suggest, it can work to deepen and entrench the differences generated by Orientalist discourse itself. Keywords Re-Orientalism, exoticism, diaspora, authenticity, imperial romance, Michael Ondaatje, Christopher Ondaatje Everyone who writes about the Orient must locate himself vis-à-vis the Orient. (Edward Said) Re-orientalism s i a term that delights in its own unstable status. Suggestive, on the one hand, of the prepositional “re” – as in “refers to” – its critical Copyright © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Vol 46(2): 199–218. DOI: 10.1177/0021989411404988 Downloaded from jcl.sagepub.com at STELLA MARIS COLG on April 22, 2013 200 Journal of Commonwealth Literature currency depends almost entirely on the smallest but most crucial of hyphenated prefixes, “re-”, which alludes to a return, or going back, and/or a repetition of what has gone before. The neological tension and overlap between these two readings of “re-” immediately compels caution: a o return t origins cannot recreate exact originary conditions – or, as Heraclitus has put it, you cannot step in the same river twice – and a repetition denies, as Derrida has shown us, any possibility of a complete return,s a origins are unfixed in the very process of recovery. Therefore the f use o the prefix suggests that to revisit or repeat Orientalism requires uso t re-orientate ourselves: the epistemological alteration requires an ontological shift that takes us to the heart of the problem of interpellation in colonial discourse. If all those who write about the Orient must locate themselves in relation to it, from what position are we ourselves speaking when we claim that someone (else) is a “Re-Orientalist”? What interpretive assumptions are embedded when the term is used outside the critical quarantine of speech marks and “we” speak or write, without the mediation of self-reflexive subject positioning, of the “Oriental”? And what claims to authority and authenticity are implicitly invoked in the f use o such terminology? My n aim i this essay is to address these questions by engaging with different uses of the term and the assumptions underpinning them. As I will show, the critical positioning of those who seek to critique “Re-Orientalist” texts presages a fundamental shift in the positioning of Orientalism itself and, when used to exclude specific writers, marks a discursive manoeuvre that can displace the most radical impulses underpinning Said’s counter- hegemonic drive. In many ways “Re-Orientalism” foregrounds the conceptual contradiction that Dennis Porter has identified at the heart of Orientalism when he observes that Said claims, on the one hand, that true knowledge is possible and, on the other, that all knowledge is political.1 This essay enters the volatile and unstable field of Re-Orientalist study and attempts to delineate and open up for debate the critical and cultural cartographies generated by the use of the term. Opening with a consideration of two contrasting and culturally dialectical uses of the term, I explore the ways in which “Re-Orientalism” can be used both to mark discursive boundaries and to engage in a contestation over cultural legitimacy, hegemony and authority. I move on to consider the complementary critical allegiances of Graham Huggan’s formulation of postcolonial exoticism and the claims of Re-Orientalism in a way that proposes a broad working definition of the term, and conclude with some reflections on the diasporic subject. Centralo t my analysis is a consideration of two diasporic Sri Lankan texts that might be considered “Re-Orientalist”. My examination of Michael Ondaatje’s Running in the Family and Christopher Ondaatje’s The Downloaded from jcl.sagepub.com at STELLA MARIS COLG on April 22, 2013 The New Cartographies of Re-Orientalism 201 Man-Eater of Punanai nfocuses o the way both texts negotiate the position of the diasporized subject in relation to the cultural Other. My analysis of these texts works to suggest that the intersecting debates generated by the cultural practice of exoticism to be found in literature and the critical practicef o those seeking to expose and examine “Re-Orientalism” reveal a specific form of contestation that marks a re-orientation of discursive authorization symptomatic of deep anxieties over cultural legitimacy. At its most radical, I argue, such a re-orientation can prompt a profound revaluation of the position of the diasporic and national subject in ways that provoke productive dialogue between them while being simultaneously attentiveo t discrepancies in the control of self-representation; at its most reactionary, I suggest, it can work to deepen and entrench the differences generated by Orientalist discourse itself, working to re-enforce rather than dismantle its hegemonizing drives, so that those who lay claim that others are “Re-Orientalist” might themselves be seen as unwitting perpetrators of the very Orientalism they seek to resist. Whose Orientalism Is It?: The Question of Reclamation The instabilities that attend Re-Orientalism can be seen in two contrasting waysn i which the term has been applied to date. The contrasting uses of the term help reveal the ways in which the polarized spatial hierarchy of Said’s Orientalism – the discursive binaries distinguishing between the Orient and the Occident, East and West, insider and outsider – is problematized when filtered through a diasporic consciousness. The “return” or “repetition” of Orientalism in both these cases is read in relation to those who are emphatically located outside the geographical boundaries of the Orient but who are nevertheless connected to this part of the world through ancestral ties – a position that shows they speak from a site of centred marginality in relation to Orientalist discourse. Both readings of Re-Orientalism (with or without the hyphen) that I discuss draw upon the hierarchical binaries of Said’s formulation to focus on the mediation of discursive power through identity politics; both grant qualified agentive powero t the diasporic Orientalized subject. Yet, as I will show, whereas in the first case Orientalism is positioned in such a way that it is shown to be fundamentally altered by its placement in the diaspora, the second use of the term presents Orientalism as fundamentally unchanged within this context. I will analyse the implications of these different readings of Re- Orientalism before going on to consider the ways in which Re-Orientalism cane b distinguished from postcolonial exoticism. The first case I will focus on is that of a multi-media performance by a f group o musicians, writers and artists that toured the United States in October 2003 in a presentation entitled, “ReOrientalism: The Near Downloaded from jcl.sagepub.com at STELLA MARIS COLG on April 22, 2013 202 Journal of Commonwealth Literature East Lives Next Door”. 2 Explicitly advertised as the cultural product of those “whose Middle Eastern descent informs their work and their lives as contemporary Americans”, the diasporic interventions of the cultural performance are clearly foregrounded in the presentation of the title. Dispensing with a hyphen, ReOrientalism marks both a cultural clash and fusiony b drawing the double capitalization of the compound word into enforced proximity. This proximity is highlighted in the very branding of the piece: the poster marketing the performance containing “re” (in small case)n i a elliptical capital O of Orientalism in a way that clearly marks the enduring dominance and primacy of the original term. The subtitle, The Near East Lives Next Door, carries this logic of enforced proximity further, unsettling and unfixing the “Middle” East into nearness and bringingt i up close and personal as a resident alien neighbour. The menace of mobility and displacement are thus clearly marked in a cartography of dislocated settlement from within the boundaries of a larger domestic, familiar and homely space. These projections of mobility are explicitly politicized as ReOrientalism is positioned as a cultural practice that works deconstructively from within hegemonic discourse. Marketed as a “collaborative performance inspired by the writings of Edward Said”, the work positions itself as a direct response to the continuing effects of Orientalism by those designated as its objects from the context of increased cultural entrenchment after the September 11 attacks.