Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Introduction: THE GENRES OF POSTCOLONIALISM

Introduction: THE GENRES OF POSTCOLONIALISM Social Text 78, Vol. 22, No. 1, Spring 2004. Copyright © 2004 by Duke University Press. Driscoll’s “isomorphic” linking of global economics and the representational politics of U.S. supermarket tabloids). Chaudhuri’s illuminating critique of the uses of Rabindranath Tagore in the scholarship of Ranajit Guha and Dipesh Chakrabarty provides an entrée 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 “most fully developed by literary scholars, who have been reluctant to make the break across disciplinary (even postdisciplinary) boundaries required to advance the argument.”4 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 influence 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Social Text Duke University Press

Introduction: THE GENRES OF POSTCOLONIALISM

Social Text , Volume 22 (1 78) – Mar 1, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/introduction-the-genres-of-postcolonialism-jg8pvefjw4
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2004 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0164-2472
eISSN
1527-1951
DOI
10.1215/01642472-22-1_78-1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Social Text 78, Vol. 22, No. 1, Spring 2004. Copyright © 2004 by Duke University Press. Driscoll’s “isomorphic” linking of global economics and the representational politics of U.S. supermarket tabloids). Chaudhuri’s illuminating critique of the uses of Rabindranath Tagore in the scholarship of Ranajit Guha and Dipesh Chakrabarty provides an entrée 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 “most fully developed by literary scholars, who have been reluctant to make the break across disciplinary (even postdisciplinary) boundaries required to advance the argument.”4 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 influence 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.

Journal

Social TextDuke University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.