Social Text 78, Vol. 22, No. 1, Spring 2004. Copyright Â© 2004 by Duke University Press. Driscollâs âisomorphicâ linking of global economics and the representational politics of U.S. supermarket tabloids). Chaudhuriâs illuminating critique of the uses of Rabindranath Tagore in the scholarship of Ranajit Guha and Dipesh Chakrabarty provides an entrÃ©e to this concern, as she asks in particular about the uses and misuses of the literary in postcolonial criticism. Stuart Hall has suggested that part of the reason for the failure of postcolonial work to deal with the economic may be that it has been âmost fully developed by literary scholars, who have been reluctant to make the break across disciplinary (even postdisciplinary) boundaries required to advance the argument.â4 If so, one might note that in the past decade there has been something of a counterdevelopment, in which a great deal of postcolonial criticism, written under the inï¬uence of the Birmingham school of cultural studies, has tended to consider literary readings, especially of forms outside mass market publishing and journalism, at best unseemly and at worst irrelevant.5 It is particularly crucial in this regard to raise the question of genre, which Chaudhuri introduces but does not pursue.
Social Text – Duke University Press
Published: Mar 1, 2004