Day: September 18, 2024

Introduction: “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad

“Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad offers a nuanced exploration of the resurgence of Marxist thought in the late 20th and early 21st centuries through the lenses of prominent theorists Jacques Derrida, Slavoj Zizek, and Alain Badiou. Published in the July-August 2012 issue of the Social Scientist journal, this essay has significantly impacted the fields of literature and literary theory by providing a comprehensive analysis of how these thinkers have reengaged with Marxist concepts and applied them to contemporary socio-political realities. Ahmad’s insightful examination has contributed to ongoing debates about Marxism’s relevance in the contemporary world and its potential to illuminate critical aspects of culture, politics, and society.

Summary of “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad

Contribution of “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad

Criticism Against “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad

Representative Quotations from “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou” by Aijaz Ahmad

1. Ahmad, Aijaz. “Three ‘Returns’ to Marx: Derrida, Zizek, Badiou.” Social Scientist, vol. 40, no. 7/8, 2012, pp. 43–59. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23338858.
2. Badiou, Alain. The Communist Hypothesis. Verso, 2010. www.versobooks.com/books/522-the-communist-hypothesis.
3. Derrida, Jacques. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International. Routledge, 1994. www.routledge.com/Specters-of-Marx-The-State-of-the-Debt-the-Work-of-Mourning-the-New/Derrida/p/book/9780415389570.
4. Žižek, Slavoj, ed. Revolution at the Gates: A Selection of Writings from February to October 1917. Verso, 2002. www.versobooks.com/books/194-revolution-at-the-gates.
5. Žižek, Slavoj, and Costas Douzinas, eds. The Idea of Communism. Verso, 2010. www.versobooks.com/books/502-the-idea-of-communism.
6. Sprinker, Michael, ed. Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida’s Spectres of Marx. Verso, 1999. www.versobooks.com/books/26-ghostly-demarcations.
7. Bosteels, Bruno. The Actuality of Communism. Verso, 2011. www.versobooks.com/books/167-the-actuality-of-communism.
8. Dean, Jodi. The Communist Horizon. Verso, 2012. www.versobooks.com/books/1575-the-communist-horizon.
9. Douzinas, Costas. Philosophy and Resistance in the Crisis: Greece and the Future of Europe. Polity, 2013. www.politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9780745653324.
10. Hallward, Peter. Badiou: A Subject to Truth. University of Minnesota Press, 2003. www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/badiou.

Introduction: “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad

“The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad was first published in 1992 in the prestigious journal Critical Inquiry. This piece of literary criticism marked a significant turning point in postcolonial studies, challenging the dominant narratives and methodologies of the time. Ahmad’s analysis, rooted in a Marxist framework, offered a nuanced critique of the nostalgic tendencies prevalent in much postcolonial literature, arguing that these nostalgic representations often reinforced colonial power structures rather than challenging them. By examining the politics of nostalgia, Ahmad contributed to a more critical and self-reflexive understanding of postcolonial discourse, shaping the field of literary theory and its subsequent development.

Summary of “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad

• Critique of Postmodernism and Radicalism: Ahmad addresses the shift from Marxist radicalism to a new form of postmodernist thinking, where postmodernism substitutes the traditional Marxist idea of class struggle with a notion of “unbelonging.” This is viewed as a nostalgic retreat rather than a constructive critique of imperialism or capitalism. Ahmad argues that “this nostalgia for lost causes” results in an intellectual detachment from the reality of political struggle.
• Third World Literature and Western Canonicity: Ahmad critiques how Third World literature, when introduced into Western academia, often gets selected and valued based on Western tastes, reducing these works to “accessible” pieces. This process creates a peculiar “canonicity” in which the literature is valued not for its intrinsic cultural or aesthetic merits but for its convenience to Western critics. Ahmad states that “this selective curiosity” results in a misrepresentation of Third World voices, with Western academics imposing their frameworks.
• The Role of Theory vs. Political Practice: Ahmad criticizes how academic theory, particularly postmodernist discourse, has displaced actual political movements and practice. He laments the intellectuals’ retreat into theoretical constructs and abstractions, rather than engaging in the real struggles of socialism and anti-imperialism. Ahmad insists that theory should not replace practice, referencing Benjamin’s claim that “the final struggle is not between capitalism and the mind but capitalism and the proletariat.”
• Nostalgia for Lost Socialist Movements: The essay reflects on the decline of socialist movements post-1960s and the nostalgia intellectuals feel for those revolutionary times. Ahmad argues that instead of romanticizing the past, the current generation of leftists should critically examine the failures of socialist states, including issues like authoritarianism and economic inefficiencies. Ahmad writes, “The task of those committed to socialist ideas is to analyze the fall, rather than lament its occurrence.”
• Criticism of Edward Said and Fredric Jameson: Ahmad critiques key intellectual figures like Edward Said and Fredric Jameson, suggesting that their critiques of Western imperialism often rely on an essentializing and oversimplified portrayal of both Western and Third World cultures. He argues that Said’s “Orientalism” homogenizes Western thought, failing to differentiate between colonialists and anti-colonial voices, while Jameson’s reduction of Third World literature to “national allegories” undermines the complexity of those cultures.
• Postcolonial Intellectuals and the Myth of Unbelonging: Ahmad criticizes intellectuals like Salman Rushdie, who he argues exemplify a postmodernist “myth of unbelongingness.” Rushdie’s narratives, while critically acclaimed, are critiqued for offering an “India predigested for the Western taste.” Ahmad believes this approach distances these works from the realities of the societies they claim to represent, contributing to a politics of detachment rather than engagement with real struggles.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad

Contribution of “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of Postmodernism:
  Ahmad’s work provides a comprehensive critique of postmodernism, arguing that it replaces the Marxist focus on class struggle with a politics of “unbelonging.” He asserts that postmodernism “invents a new, curiously mocking, irresponsible radicalism without an address, a radicalism of non-belongingness” (Ahmad, p. 530). This critique challenges postmodernist theory by emphasizing its detachment from material political practice and its failure to engage with real-world struggles.
• Re-examination of Orientalism:
  Ahmad contributes to postcolonial theory by offering a nuanced critique of Edward Said’s “Orientalism.” While acknowledging the significance of Said’s work in critiquing Western imperialism, Ahmad argues that Said “essentializes Western culture” by homogenizing its diverse intellectual traditions (Ahmad, p. 536). He critiques Said’s tendency to treat the West as a monolithic entity, thus contributing to a more complex understanding of postcolonial theory.
• Challenge to the National Allegory Theory:
  Ahmad’s work challenges Fredric Jameson’s concept of “Third World literature as national allegory.” Ahmad rejects the reduction of Third World texts to mere allegories of national struggles, arguing that “Third World literature is far more diverse and complex” than Jameson’s framework suggests (Ahmad, p. 96). This critique contributes to postcolonial literary theory by urging a more nuanced and multifaceted approach to Third World texts.
• Marxist Literary Criticism:
  Ahmad reinforces the importance of Marxist theory in literary criticism by advocating for a return to materialist analysis. He critiques postmodernism for its theoretical abstraction, asserting that “the final struggle is not between capitalism and the mind but capitalism and the proletariat” (Ahmad, p. 527). Ahmad’s insistence on grounding literary theory in political economy and class struggle reinvigorates Marxist criticism as a response to postmodern and postcolonial theories.
• Critique of Canonicity and Counter-Canonicity:
  Ahmad contributes to debates on literary canonicity by highlighting how Third World literature is selectively valued in Western academia. He argues that Western critics create “a peculiar canonicity” around certain Third World texts based on their accessibility, not their aesthetic or cultural value (Ahmad, p. 532). This critique enriches discussions on the politics of canon formation and the relationship between cultural production and global power dynamics.
• Re-evaluation of Third Worldism in Literary Theory:
  Ahmad critiques the idealization of Third World nationalism by Western intellectuals, arguing that they often romanticize it without understanding the complexities of these societies. He notes that “Western radicals saw in Third World movements the utopian possibilities that their own societies lacked” (Ahmad, p. 529). This critique contributes to postcolonial theory by exposing the limitations and contradictions in how the West engages with the Third World.
• Critique of the Role of Intellectuals in Postcolonial Theory:
  Ahmad critiques intellectuals like Salman Rushdie for engaging in a “myth of unbelongingness” that distances them from the realities of the societies they depict. He argues that their work is “always facing the West” and panders to Western tastes (Ahmad, p. 539). This critique contributes to postcolonial theory by addressing the complex role of intellectuals and their relationship with both Western and non-Western audiences.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad

Criticism Against “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad

• Over-reliance on Marxism: Critics argue that Ahmad’s work is overly dependent on Marxist theory, which limits his ability to engage with newer intellectual developments such as postmodernism. His strong adherence to traditional Marxist perspectives may overlook the nuances and potential contributions of more contemporary theoretical frameworks.
• Romanticization of Socialist Movements: Ahmad’s nostalgia for the socialist movements of the 1960s and his critique of their decline is seen by some as romanticized and backward-looking. Critics contend that Ahmad does not sufficiently acknowledge the inherent flaws and failures within those movements, such as authoritarianism and economic stagnation.
• Dismissal of Postmodernism: Ahmad’s outright rejection of postmodernism is viewed by some scholars as overly simplistic. Critics argue that postmodernism offers valuable critiques of grand narratives and hegemonic structures, and Ahmad’s dismissal of it fails to recognize the diversity and potential within postmodern thought.
• Lack of Engagement with Cultural Specificities: Ahmad’s critique of the Western canonization of Third World literature is seen as valid, but critics argue that his analysis sometimes overlooks the cultural and historical specificities of individual works. By focusing primarily on the Western reception of these texts, he may downplay the internal complexities and dynamics within Third World societies themselves.
• Narrow View of Third World Literature: Some scholars believe that Ahmad’s insistence on a Marxist framework for evaluating Third World literature limits his interpretation of these texts. His focus on political and economic structures can overshadow the literary, aesthetic, and cultural dimensions of these works, which are equally important in understanding their value.
• Simplification of Postcolonial Criticism: Ahmad’s critique of postcolonial theorists like Edward Said is seen as reductive by some, as it oversimplifies their contributions and neglects the broader scope of postcolonial studies. By focusing primarily on their perceived shortcomings, Ahmad may fail to recognize the advancements they have made in critiquing imperialism and cultural hegemony.

Representative Quotations from “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Politics of Nostalgia” by Aijaz Ahmad

1. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992. https://www.versobooks.com/books/489-in-theory
2. Kaviraj, Sudipta. “The Politics of Nostalgia: A Review of Aijaz Ahmad’s In Theory.” Economy and Society, vol. 22, no. 4, 1993, pp. 525-543. Taylor & Francis.
   https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085149300000033
3. Ahmad, Aijaz. “The Politics of Literary Postcoloniality.” Race & Class, vol. 36, no. 3, 1995, pp. 1-20. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/030639689503600301
4. Morton, Stephen. Aijaz Ahmad: Literature, Politics, and the Struggle for Hegemony. Pluto Press, 2007. https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745322189/aijaz-ahmad/
5. Bahri, Deepika. “Postcoloniality and Aijaz Ahmad’s In Theory.” Social Text, no. 35, 1993, pp. 199-212. Duke University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/466485\
6. Ahmad, Aijaz. “The Politics of Literary Theory and Its Discontents.” Monthly Review, vol. 46, no. 3, 1994, pp. 1-18. https://monthlyreview.org/1994/07/01/the-politics-of-literary-theory-and-its-discontents/
7. Ahmad, Aijaz. “Imperialism of Our Time.” Social Scientist, vol. 42, no. 9/10, 2014, pp. 3-20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24372932
8. Chibber, Vivek. “The Contradictions of Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Response to Aijaz Ahmad.” New Left Review, no. 68, 2011, pp. 53-79. https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii68/articles/vivek-chibber-the-contradictions-of-postcolonial-theory
9. Lazarus, Neil. The Postcolonial Unconscious. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Introduction: “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad

“The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad first appeared in 2000 in the journal Social Scientist. This essay holds significant importance in literature and literary theory due to its insightful exploration of the concept of “world literature” within the framework of Marxist thought. Ahmad challenges the Eurocentric biases prevalent in traditional notions of world literature, arguing that it often overlooks the rich literary traditions of non-Western societies. He proposes a rethinking of world literature, emphasizing the interconnectedness of literary production across different cultures and historical contexts, and the role of political and economic factors in shaping literary forms and content. Ahmad’s essay has been influential in stimulating discussions about the politics of literary representation and the need for a more inclusive and equitable understanding of global literary traditions.

Summary of “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad

1. Marx’s Vision of Revolution
   • The article begins by highlighting the context in which Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto, emphasizing that revolution seemed inevitable in his time. “The idea of a revolution, of one kind or another, seemed as natural as the prospect that the sun would set in the evening and rise in the morning.” Ahmad discusses how Marx, despite growing up in a revolutionary era, formulated a uniquely proletarian orientation for the coming revolution.
   • Marx believed that the revolution must transcend the limitations of the bourgeoisie-led revolutions, such as the French Revolution, and strive for universal emancipation. He critiques the abstract nature of rights, noting that “the ‘Declaration’ itself guaranteed inequality when it guaranteed the right to property.”
2. The Manifesto’s Transitional Nature
   • Ahmad argues that The Communist Manifesto is a transitional text, reflecting Marx’s evolving thought. He notes, “For all the originality and magisterial sweep of the materialist conception of history, the essential categories of his economic analysis had not until then gone much beyond the familiar categories inherited from classical political economy.”
   • The text bridges the democratic revolution of 1789 and the proletarian revolution envisioned by Marx. However, many key concepts in Marx’s later works, such as Capital, had not fully developed at the time of the Manifesto’s writing.
3. Colonialism and Global Capitalism
   • Ahmad addresses Marx’s limited understanding of colonialism at the time of writing the Manifesto. Initially, Marx viewed colonialism as part of capitalism’s global expansion without comprehending its devastating impact on the colonies. “Colonialism was not to be the industrializing force that so much of early Marx had anticipated,” writes Ahmad, acknowledging that Marx’s later works reflect a deeper understanding of colonial exploitation.
   • The article explores how Marx’s later works recognize colonialism as “a bleeding process with a vengeance,” highlighting the uneven and exploitative nature of capitalism’s global expansion.
4. World Literature and Globalization
   • One of the key themes of Ahmad’s article is the relationship between the global capitalist market and the emergence of what Marx called ‘world literature.’ Ahmad explains that Marx saw capitalist globalization as creating a “cosmopolitan character to production and consumption,” leading to the rise of a global literary culture.
   • However, Ahmad critiques Marx’s optimism about world literature, noting the unevenness and hierarchy inherent in global capitalism. “The same globalizing market forces which impose upon the world a historically unprecedented unity also divide and fragment the world so drastically.”
5. Cultural Imperialism and National Literatures
   • Ahmad explores the tension between the idea of world literature and national literatures. He notes that Marx’s critique of ‘narrow-minded’ national literatures was a reflection of his desire for an internationalist culture that transcends nationalism.
   • However, Ahmad acknowledges the value of national literatures as expressions of “the democratic demand and a just cultural aspiration of a people,” especially in the context of colonial domination. The author critiques the assumption that world literature will naturally supplant national and local cultures.
6. The Role of Translation and Global Literary Exchange
   • The article discusses how world literature has been shaped by the global market, particularly through translation. Ahmad notes that in the current literary market, texts become part of world literature only when they are recognized and circulated within metropolitan centers, such as the United States or Western Europe. “A text thus produced becomes a text of world literature when it arrives in the metropolitan center, gets recognized as meriting inclusion in the archive of ‘world’ literature.”
   • Ahmad points out that the production and circulation of world literature are driven by the economic power of the capitalist centers, which control the publishing and distribution networks.
7. Contradictions in the Global Literary System
   • Ahmad concludes by reflecting on the contradictions inherent in the idea of world literature under capitalism. While capitalist globalization has made world literature possible, it has also introduced hierarchies and inequalities that limit its potential. “For a ‘world literature’ to arise as a ‘true interdependence of nations,’ the logic of the ‘world market’ needs to be transcended.”
   • He emphasizes that world literature, much like socialism, is a horizon, something that exists as a possibility but remains unrealized under the current global system.

References (Quotations from the article)

• “The idea of a revolution, of one kind or another, seemed as natural as the prospect that the sun would set in the evening and rise in the morning.”
• “The ‘Declaration’ itself guaranteed inequality when it guaranteed the right to property.”
• “Colonialism was not to be the industrializing force that so much of early Marx had anticipated.”
• “The same globalizing market forces which impose upon the world a historically unprecedented unity also divide and fragment the world so drastically.”
• “A text thus produced becomes a text of world literature when it arrives in the metropolitan center, gets recognized as meriting inclusion in the archive of ‘world’ literature.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad

Additionally, the excerpt discusses concepts related to literature:

• World Literature | Literature that transcends national boundaries and reflects a global perspective.
• National Literature | Literature that reflects the culture and values of a particular nation.
• Cultural Imperialism | The imposition of a dominant culture on other cultures.
• Hybridity | The mixing of different cultural elements.
• Translation | The process of transferring a text from one language to another.
• Cross-Fertilization | The exchange of ideas and influences between different cultures.

Contribution of “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad  to Literary Theory/Theories

References (Quotations from the article)

• “Capitalism is seen here, already, as the first mode of production in history that has an inner logic to break the boundaries of exclusively national economies and cultures.”
• “Colonialism was not to be the industrializing force that so much of early Marx had anticipated.”
• “The same globalizing market forces which impose upon the world a historically unprecedented unity also divide and fragment the world so drastically.”
• “A text thus produced becomes a text of world literature when it arrives in the metropolitan center, gets recognized as meriting inclusion in the archive of ‘world’ literature.”
• “Translation has become in the second half of the 20th century as important and widespread an activity as original composition.”

Examples of Critiques Through “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad

Criticism Against “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad

• Eurocentrism in Framing of World Literature
  • Ahmad critiques Marx for his Eurocentric focus, yet some critics argue that Ahmad himself doesn’t fully escape this bias. His analysis primarily revolves around European and North American centers of cultural and literary production, overlooking other forms of non-Western literary traditions that may operate outside of capitalist frameworks.
• Overemphasis on Economic Determinism
  • Critics argue that Ahmad’s analysis leans heavily on the economic base-superstructure model, suggesting that all literary and cultural production is a direct reflection of economic conditions. This economic determinism could be seen as reductive, minimizing the agency of writers and intellectuals in shaping cultural forms independently of market forces.
• Simplification of National Literature and Globalization Dynamics
  • Ahmad’s characterization of national literatures as either victims of globalization or as resistant cultural expressions is seen as overly simplistic. Critics point out that national literatures often exist in a more complex, hybrid space that can simultaneously resist and engage with global capitalist influences, making them more dynamic than Ahmad’s binary framing allows.
• Insufficient Engagement with Non-Capitalist Literary Systems
  • Ahmad focuses predominantly on literature produced within or in response to capitalist markets, without deeply considering literary traditions or movements that have evolved outside these economic systems, such as indigenous or pre-modern literatures. This focus could be seen as limiting the scope of his analysis, neglecting other valuable literary traditions.
• Limited Discussion of Aesthetic Value
  • Ahmad’s analysis is largely focused on the political and economic dimensions of literary production, with relatively little attention paid to the aesthetic qualities of literature. Some critics argue that his framework tends to reduce literature to its role in global capitalism, overlooking its capacity for aesthetic innovation and creative expression beyond political and economic contexts.
• Narrow Focus on the Role of Translation
  • While Ahmad emphasizes the role of translation in shaping world literature, critics argue that his focus is too narrow, as he primarily addresses translation from non-Western languages into dominant European languages. The complexities of translation within non-European contexts, or between non-dominant languages, are not fully explored.
• Inadequate Engagement with Digital Media and Contemporary Literature
  • Given that the article was published in 2000, some critics point out that Ahmad does not account for the significant impact of digital media and the internet on the circulation of literature globally. The rise of e-books, self-publishing, and digital platforms has changed the dynamics of literary production and dissemination in ways that challenge traditional capitalist models, which Ahmad does not consider.
• Romanticization of the Socialist Project
  • Ahmad’s critique of capitalist globalization often contrasts it with an idealized vision of socialism. Critics argue that his portrayal of a future socialist world literature, free from the inequalities of capitalism, lacks practical details on how such a system would function. This romanticization of socialism may overlook the complexities and contradictions that would likely arise in any global literary system, socialist or otherwise.
• Insufficient Attention to Gender and Identity in Literature
  • Ahmad’s analysis focuses primarily on class and national identity within world literature, but he provides limited engagement with how other identity markers, such as gender, race, and sexuality, intersect with the global literary market. Critics argue that this omission weakens his analysis, as these identity markers play a crucial role in shaping both the production and reception of literature globally.

Representative Quotations from “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature'” by Aijaz Ahmad

1. Ahmad, Aijaz. “The Communist Manifesto and ‘World Literature’.” Social Scientist, vol. 28, no. 7/8, 2000, pp. 3-30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3518232.
2. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992. www.versobooks.com/books/499-in-theory.
3. Moretti, Franco. Distant Reading. Verso, 2013. www.versobooks.com/books/1379-distant-reading.
4. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981. www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801492228/the-political-unconscious.
5. Apter, Emily. Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. Verso, 2013. www.versobooks.com/books/1503-against-world-literature.
6. Casanova, Pascale. The World Republic of Letters. Translated by M. B. DeBevoise, Harvard University Press, 2007. www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013452.
7. Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. Knopf, 1993. www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/160315/culture-and-imperialism-by-edward-w-said.
8. Damrosch, David. What Is World Literature? Princeton University Press, 2003. www.press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691049089/what-is-world-literature.
9. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Penguin Classics, 2002. www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/284409/the-communist-manifesto-by-karl-marx-and-friedrich-engels.
10. Patnaik, Prabhat. “The Communist Manifesto After 150 Years.” In Karat, Prakash, editor. A World to Win: Essays on The Communist Manifesto, LeftWord, 1999, pp. 57-72. www.leftword.com/book/a-world-to-win-essays-on-the-communist-manifesto.html.

Introduction: “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad

“The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad، first appeared in 1999 in the journal Social Scientist، is considered a significant contribution to literary theory and cultural studies. Ahmad argues that culture cannot be separated from politics and that political struggles are often played out through cultural forms. He criticizes the way that Western cultural theorists often ignore or downplay the importance of political context in understanding cultural phenomena. Ahmad’s essay has been influential in shaping debates about the relationship between culture and politics, and it continues to be widely read and discussed today.

Summary of “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad

Contribution of “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad

Key Themes from “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad:

• Cultural Imperialism: Critique of how colonial powers imposed their culture while marginalizing the cultures of colonized peoples.
• Revivalist Cultural Nationalism: Aijaz Ahmad opposes the revivalist, elitist conception of national culture, advocating instead for a democratic, secular culture.
• Materialist Critique: Culture should be viewed through the lens of material practices, emphasizing access to cultural goods based on class, caste, and gender.
• Elite vs. Popular Culture: Ahmad critiques the distinction between high culture and popular culture, advocating for the recognition of oppressed classes’ cultural contributions.

Criticism Against “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad

Representative Quotations from “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “The Politics of Culture” by Aijaz Ahmad

1. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992.
2. Brennan, Timothy. Wars of Position: The Cultural Politics of Left and Right. Columbia University Press, 2006.
3. Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press, 1993.
4. Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971.
5. Hall, Stuart, et al. Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. Wiley-Blackwell, 1996.
6. Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981.
7. Nandy, Ashis. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. Oxford University Press, 1983.
8. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. Knopf, 1993.
9. Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society: 1780–1950. Columbia University Press, 1983.
10. Young, Robert J.C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.

Introduction: “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad

“Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the ‘National Allegory'” by Aijaz Ahmad was first published in 1987 in the journal Social Text. This essay is crucial for comprehending the significance of literature and literary theory. It offers a detailed examination of Fredric Jameson’s concept of the “national allegory” and its implications for understanding Third World literatures. Ahmad criticizes Jameson’s approach for its tendency to reduce Third World texts to mere representations of national identity, neglecting their complexities and diverse voices. He argues for a more nuanced understanding of these literatures that acknowledges their hybridity and their potential to challenge dominant narratives.

Summary of “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad

• Critique of Jameson’s Binary Framework:
• Ahmad critiques Fredric Jameson’s binary opposition of the “first” and “third” worlds in his theory of third-world literature.
  • “We have, instead, a binary opposition of what Jameson calls the ‘first’ and the ‘third’ worlds.”
• Rejection of the Concept of ‘Third-World Literature’:
• Ahmad argues against the notion of a singular “third-world literature,” seeing it as a problematic reduction of the complexities of varied literary traditions.
  • “There is no such thing as a ‘third-world literature’ which can be constructed as an internally coherent object of theoretical knowledge.”
• Questioning ‘National Allegory’:
• Jameson’s claim that all third-world texts are national allegories is challenged by Ahmad as an oversimplification of the diversity within third-world literature.
  • “Jameson defines the so-called third world in terms of its ‘experience of colonialism and imperialism,’” leading to his idea that “all third-world texts are necessarily… national allegories.”
• Cultural and Linguistic Heterogeneity:
• Ahmad emphasizes the vast linguistic and cultural heterogeneity in the third world, criticizing Jameson’s theory for homogenizing this diversity.
  • “The enormous cultural heterogeneity of social formations within the so-called third world is submerged within a singular identity of ‘experience.'”
• Historical and Economic Complexity:
• Ahmad points out that many third-world nations, such as India, have complex capitalist systems that Jameson’s binary framework fails to account for.
  • “India’s steel industry did celebrate its hundredth anniversary a few years ago, and the top eight of her multinational corporations are among the fastest growing in the world.”
• Impact of Colonialism vs. Internal Social Conflicts:
• Ahmad highlights that many literary texts from the third world do not center around the colonial experience, but rather focus on internal social conflicts and class struggles.
  • “The barbarity of feudal landowners, the rapes and murders in the houses of religious ‘mystics’… are the dominant themes in many novels, not colonialism.”
• Criticism of Western Canonization and Representation:
• Ahmad criticizes how certain third-world authors, such as Salman Rushdie, are valorized beyond measure due to their writing in English, representing an entire civilization rather than being appreciated for their individuality.
  • “The retribution visited upon the head of an Asian, an African, an Arab intellectual who writes in English is that he/she is immediately elevated to the lonely splendor of a ‘representative’… of a race, a continent, a civilization.”
• Dialectical Materialism vs. Postmodernism:
• Ahmad contrasts Jameson’s rigid, binary Marxist framework with a more flexible understanding of global capitalism, emphasizing the fluidity and contradictions within capitalist and socialist systems.
  • “The world is united… by the global operation of a single mode of production, namely the capitalist one, and the global resistance to this mode.”
• Multiplicity of Determinations:
• Ahmad argues that literary texts cannot be reduced to a single ideological determination (such as nationalism) but are products of multiple, complex determinations.
  • “Literary texts are produced in highly differentiated, usually very over-determined contexts of competing ideological and cultural clusters.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad

Contribution of “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of Binary Oppositions in Literary Theory:
• Ahmad challenges the use of binary categories (first-world/third-world) in Jameson’s work, arguing that they oversimplify global literary dynamics and ignore internal complexities.
  • “The binary opposition which Jameson constructs between a capitalist first world and a presumably pre- or non-capitalist third world is empirically ungrounded.”
• Rejection of the Concept of a Unified ‘Third-World Literature’:
• Ahmad rejects the notion of a coherent and unified “third-world literature,” emphasizing that it is impossible to theorize such a category given the vast cultural, linguistic, and historical diversity of the countries involved.
  • “I shall argue, therefore, that there is no such thing as a ‘third-world literature’ which can be constructed as an internally coherent object of theoretical knowledge.”
• Interrogation of the ‘National Allegory’ as a Singular Framework:
• Ahmad critiques Jameson’s assertion that all third-world texts are national allegories, stating that this reduces the literary output of diverse cultures to a single narrative form.
  • “To say that all third-world texts are necessarily this or that is to say, in effect, that any text originating within that social space which is not this or that is not a ‘true’ narrative.”
• Promotion of Multiplicity and Over-Determination in Literary Analysis:
• Ahmad advocates for recognizing multiple, complex, and contradictory forces that shape literary texts, rather than reducing them to one overarching framework (e.g., nationalism or colonialism).
  • “Literary texts are produced in highly differentiated, usually very over-determined contexts of competing ideological and cultural clusters.”
• Critique of Western Canon Formation and Representation:
• Ahmad contributes to discussions on how non-Western writers are represented in the Western literary canon, criticizing the selective inclusion of certain third-world writers while ignoring the broader literary traditions they represent.
  • “The representation of this body of work in Jameson’s discourse as simply ‘non-canonical’… does appear to over-state the case considerably.”
• Expansion of Marxist Literary Criticism:
• By critiquing Jameson’s reliance on the Three Worlds Theory, Ahmad pushes for a more nuanced application of Marxist theory, recognizing the complexity and contradictions of global capitalism rather than reducing it to simple binaries.
  • “The world is united… by the global operation of a single mode of production, namely the capitalist one, and the global resistance to this mode.”
• Critique of Essentialism in Literary Theory:
• Ahmad opposes essentialist views that categorize entire regions or cultures under singular literary frameworks, stressing the need to recognize the internal heterogeneity of third-world nations.
  • “The enormous cultural heterogeneity of social formations within the so-called third world is submerged within a singular identity of ‘experience.'”
• Decolonizing the Study of Literature:
• Ahmad’s critique of Jameson’s Eurocentric approach to third-world literature contributes to broader decolonial efforts in literary theory, challenging Western intellectual frameworks that reduce non-Western cultures to mere opposites of the West.
  • “Jameson’s framework tends to homogenize third-world literature much in the same way Orientalist scholarship has historically presented non-Western cultures.”
• Contribution to Global Literary Studies:
• Ahmad’s argument for understanding global literature as part of a unified yet diverse world system challenges the notion of distinct “worlds” and contributes to the field of global literary studies by emphasizing interconnections and contradictions within global capitalism.
  • “One could start with a radically different premise, namely the proposition that we live not in three worlds but in one.”

Examples of Critiques Through “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad

Criticism Against “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad

• Overemphasis on Diversity at the Expense of Commonalities: Ahmad’s critique of Jameson’s generalizations might itself downplay the shared historical experiences of colonialism and imperialism that many third-world countries have faced, which could still serve as a useful framework for understanding certain literary trends.
• Insufficient Engagement with Jameson’s Positive Contributions: While Ahmad critiques Jameson’s binary framework, he may overlook the value of Jameson’s attempt to include third-world literature in global literary theory, and his effort to engage with non-Western literary traditions in a serious manner.
• Limited Recognition of Nationalism’s Role in Literature: Ahmad’s rejection of nationalism as a dominant framework may underplay its central role in many third-world countries’ postcolonial identities and literatures. Nationalist themes are significant in shaping much of the literature from decolonizing nations.
• Potential Underestimation of the Importance of Allegory: Ahmad’s dismissal of the “national allegory” concept might ignore the fact that allegorical readings have been historically central to many third-world literatures, especially in postcolonial narratives where personal and national experiences are often intertwined.
• Overemphasis on Language as a Barrier: Ahmad highlights the issue of linguistic diversity, but critics might argue that the emphasis on language overlooks how translated works can still convey essential themes and shared experiences across linguistic boundaries, creating cross-cultural connections.
• Lack of Alternatives to Binary Frameworks: While Ahmad critiques Jameson’s binary opposition of first- and third-worlds, he offers limited alternative frameworks for understanding the global literary landscape, which could leave a theoretical gap in explaining common structures or themes across these literatures.
• Dismissal of Global Theoretical Models: Ahmad’s focus on rejecting Jameson’s framework might be seen as a rejection of broader attempts to theorize global literary movements. This could be seen as resisting efforts to develop universal theoretical models for understanding literature in a globalized world.

Representative Quotations from “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the “National Allegory” by Aijaz Ahmad

1. Ahmad, Aijaz. “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the ‘National Allegory.'” Social Text, no. 17, 1987, pp. 3-25. Duke University Press, www.jstor.org/stable/466475.
2. Jameson, Fredric. “Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism.” Social Text, no. 15, 1986, pp. 65-88. Duke University Press, www.jstor.org/stable/466493
3. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992. www.versobooks.com/books/688-in-theory.
4. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994. www.routledge.com/The-Location-of-Culture/Bhabha/p/book/9780415336390.
5. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978. www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/174665/orientalism-by-edward-w-said/.
6. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard University Press, 1999. www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674177642.
7. Lazarus, Neil. “Fredric Jameson on ‘Third-World Literature’: A Qualified Defence.” Postcolonial Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 1998, pp. 7-26. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13688799889930.
8. Mufti, Aamir R. “Auerbach in Istanbul: Edward Said, Secular Criticism, and the Question of Minority Culture.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 25, no. 1, 1998, pp. 95-125. www.jstor.org/stable/1344165.
9. Gandhi, Leela. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. Columbia University Press, 1998. www.cup.columbia.edu/book/postcolonial-theory/9780231112770.
10. Boelhower, William. “The Rise of the New Atlantic Studies Matrix.” American Literary History, vol. 20, no. 1-2, 2008, pp. 83-101. www.jstor.org/stable/20492210.

Introduction: “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad

“Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad first appeared in 1993 in the journal Social Scientist. This essay holds significant importance in literature and literary theory due to its insightful analysis of the relationship between fascism, national culture, and the rise of Hindutva in India. Ahmad utilizes Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony to examine how Hindutva ideology seeks to dominate the cultural sphere and construct a national identity that marginalizes and excludes minority groups. The essay’s critical perspective and its exploration of the complexities of cultural politics continue to be relevant and influential in contemporary literary and cultural studies.

Summary of “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad

• Gramsci and Indian Context: Aijaz Ahmad draws parallels between the fascist tendencies in Italy during Gramsci’s time and contemporary India under the rise of Hindutva. He argues that reflections on fascism in Europe can help understand similar trends in India (Ahmad, p.32).
• The Role of Language and Culture in Nationalism: Ahmad highlights how both Italy and India share historical parallels regarding language and culture. In Italy, Latin and later Italian were symbols of privilege, while in India, Sanskrit played a similar role in perpetuating Brahminical dominance. The classical languages became tools for hierarchical structures, contributing to cultural fragmentation (Ahmad, pp.34-35).
• Failure of Italian Renaissance and Risorgimento: Ahmad discusses Gramsci’s analysis of Italy’s failure to create a secular, national culture during the Renaissance and the Risorgimento. These periods could not integrate the peasantry or foster a national-popular dynamic, which led to Italy’s susceptibility to fascism. This failure mirrors India’s struggles with regionalism and caste-based hierarchies (Ahmad, pp.35-37).
• Fascism as a Mass Movement: Fascism is seen not merely as a reactionary elite conspiracy but as a movement that mobilizes various social strata. Gramsci viewed fascism in Italy as addressing the structural crises of Italian capitalism, drawing support from diverse groups, including the capitalist class and petty bourgeoisie. Similarly, Hindutva mobilizes mass consent by appealing to national traditions, invoking myths of a unified past (Ahmad, pp.39-40).
• The Role of Intellectuals and the Church: Gramsci and Ahmad critique the role of intellectuals in supporting reactionary structures. In Italy, the Vatican played a crucial role in maintaining conservative hegemony, just as traditional intellectuals in India propagate a Brahminical order under the guise of preserving culture (Ahmad, pp.40-42).
• The ‘National-Popular’ and the Peasantry: Gramsci’s notion of the “national-popular” is central to his theory of revolution. A lack of alignment between intellectuals and the peasantry in Italy hindered the formation of a national-popular movement. Ahmad connects this to India’s failure to integrate various regional and caste-based identities into a unified national culture (Ahmad, pp.44-45).
• Comparisons with Hindutva: Ahmad warns of the parallels between Italian fascism and Hindutva, particularly how both movements use cultural revivalism and religious symbolism to garner mass support. He emphasizes that Hindutva, much like Italian fascism, builds on a mythic notion of national unity while marginalizing dissenting voices (Ahmad, pp.48-50).
• The Role of Economic Crises in Fascism: Gramsci and Ahmad note that economic crises do not directly produce revolutions or fascism but create fertile ground for specific ideological movements to gain traction. In India, the economic policies of liberalization have created discontent among the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie, which could be exploited by fascist forces (Ahmad, p.56).
• Importance of Collective Intellectual Agency: Gramsci’s call for a “collective intellectual” to lead the counter-hegemony against fascism resonates with Ahmad’s argument that the struggle against Hindutva requires a broad-based, organized intellectual and moral reform. This reform must address both economic and cultural issues (Ahmad, p.65).

References from the Article

• “The paradox of Italian history is that, for all the antiquity of its civilization, it never became a unified political entity until the late nineteenth century.” (Ahmad, p.35).
• “The language of classicism and imperial rule, Latin, was succeeded by Italian, which became the language of privilege, but barely two and a half percent of Italians spoke it.” (Ahmad, p.34).
• “Gramsci’s analysis of the failure of the Renaissance and Risorgimento highlights the failure of these movements to unify Italy politically or culturally.” (Ahmad, p.35).
• “Fascism mobilized diverse strata in Italy, addressing the structural crises of capitalism and drawing support from sectors that were not originally fascist in outlook.” (Ahmad, p.39).
• “The intellectual stratum in Italy, as in India, has often been complicit in preserving traditional structures of privilege, using classical languages and religious institutions to maintain social hierarchies.” (Ahmad, p.41).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad

Contribution of “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad

Criticism Against “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad

• Overemphasis on Historical Parallels: Critics argue that Ahmad places too much emphasis on historical parallels between Italian fascism and the contemporary Hindutva movement, which may overlook unique aspects of Indian culture, politics, and social dynamics.
• Neglect of Postcolonial Complexity: Ahmad’s focus on Gramsci’s theories may sideline the complex realities of postcolonial India, reducing nuanced political, social, and cultural dynamics to overly broad theoretical frameworks that may not fully capture India’s post-independence challenges.
• Class-Centric Analysis: The strong focus on class struggle, typical of Gramsci’s Marxism, might lead Ahmad to underplay other critical factors such as religious, regional, or ethnic divisions that are equally significant in India, especially in the context of Hindutva’s rise.
• Limited Engagement with Caste: While Ahmad draws on Marxist concepts, his analysis has been critiqued for not fully integrating the caste system’s unique role in shaping India’s socio-political fabric, which often intersects with class but operates independently in many aspects of Indian life.
• Inflexible Application of European Theories: Some critics argue that Ahmad’s use of Gramscian theory may be too rigidly European and doesn’t fully adapt to India’s specific historical, social, and cultural context, resulting in a somewhat forced comparison between Italian fascism and Indian political movements.
• Underrepresentation of Cultural Nationalism’s Positive Aspects: Ahmad’s critical take on cultural nationalism through a Gramscian lens may be seen as overly dismissive of how cultural nationalism has positively contributed to anti-colonial and democratic movements in India, including Gandhian and Nehruvian efforts.
• Dismissal of Alternative Intellectual Approaches: Ahmad’s strict Marxist critique may undervalue other intellectual traditions and critical approaches to understanding the rise of Hindutva, such as subaltern studies or postcolonial theory, which may provide alternative insights into India’s contemporary politics.

Representative Quotations from “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad with Explanation

Suggested Readings: “Fascism and National Culture: Reading Gramsci in the Days of Hindutva” by Aijaz Ahmad

1. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992.
2. Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, International Publishers, 1971.
3. Anderson, Perry. The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci. Verso, 1976.
4. Bose, Sumantra. Secular States, Religious Politics: India, Turkey, and the Future of Secularism. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
5. Chatterjee, Partha. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press, 1993.
6. Menon, Nivedita. Seeing Like a Feminist. Zubaan Books, 2012.
7. Sarkar, Sumit. Beyond Nationalist Frames: Postmodernism, Hindu Fundamentalism, History. Indiana University Press, 2002.
8. Vanaik, Achin. The Rise of Hindu Authoritarianism: Secular Claims, Communal Realities. Verso, 2017.
9. Bhatt, Chetan. Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies, and Modern Myths. Berg, 2001.