“Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

“Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram, and Vitaly Chernetsky was first published in 2006 in the prestigious literary journal PMLA. This groundbreaking article holds significant importance in literature and literary theory as it explores the complex intersections of postcolonialism and the post-Soviet space. By challenging traditional notions of both postcolonialism and the Soviet experience, the authors offer a nuanced understanding of the ongoing legacies of imperialism and colonialism in the former Soviet Union.

Summary of “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

1. Rethinking Soviet Studies as Postcolonial: The article explores the idea of rethinking Soviet studies within a postcolonial framework, acknowledging the limitations of previous models which were based on British imperialism. It questions whether postcolonialism is suitable for understanding the post-Soviet world, particularly in “the aftermath of old multicultural empires” (p. 828).
2. Complexity of Postcolonial Identity in Eastern Europe: The authors discuss whether postcolonial identity can be applied uniformly across regions like Central Europe and the former Soviet republics. They emphasize the complexity of such identity, noting that terms like “occupation” and “colonialism” might not equally apply across different regions, raising the question, “Is it correct to say that the Czechs, for example, were occupied but the Uzbeks colonized?” (p. 830).
3. Internal Soviet Empire and its Contradictions: The article highlights the internal diversity of the Soviet empire, which complicates the application of postcolonial theory. It argues that “the simultaneity of Soviet postcoloniality and Russian colonialism” creates contradictions, yet these conditions are intensely compatible (p. 831).
4. Post-Soviet Cultural Analysis: The need to examine post-Soviet culture within the context of Russia’s unique markers of modernity is emphasized. The article notes that Russia’s state-driven, centralized structure, and its relative impoverishment at its center contrast sharply with Western borders. These factors complicate a simple postcolonial analysis (p. 831).
5. Postcolonial Discourse in Russian Studies: The article discusses the delayed engagement of Russian academia with postcolonial discourse. It notes that “throughout the 1990s, postcolonialism was perhaps the only major contemporary theoretical discourse persistently ignored by Russian academics” (p. 834).
6. Self-Colonization Thesis: The authors explore the concept of Russia as a “self-colonizing state,” tracing this idea to Peter the Great’s reforms, which were seen as a means for Russia to “save itself from real colonization by a West that surpassed it technically and militarily” (p. 835).
7. Critique of Russian Postcolonial Engagement: The article critiques Russian scholars’ appropriation of postcolonial discourse, especially the tendency to view Russian colonization in a positive light while dismissing European colonization as negative. This approach, the authors argue, reflects a continuation of Russian colonialist ideology (p. 835).
8. Emerging Engagement with Postcolonialism in Russia: The authors acknowledge that while Russian scholars are beginning to engage with postcolonial discourse, the engagement is still limited and often reflects imperialist prejudices. They express hope that recent geopolitical shifts, such as the “colored revolutions,” will prompt a more radical rethinking of Russia’s imperial legacy (p. 836).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Quotation/Reference
Postcolonialism	A theoretical framework that explores the effects of colonialism on cultures and societies, particularly focusing on issues of power, identity, and resistance in formerly colonized regions. The article examines whether the post-Soviet space can be considered postcolonial, expanding the traditional boundaries of postcolonial studies.	“Every postcoloniality is situated, and therefore different.” (p. 829)
Subaltern Studies	A field within postcolonial studies that focuses on the voices and experiences of marginalized or oppressed groups, often overlooked in traditional historical narratives. The article highlights the importance of using literary imagination to uncover excluded itineraries in elite texts.	“As a feminist and a subalternist, I am used to looking at the pores of elite texts to tease out excluded itineraries.” (p. 829)
Hybrid Diasporas	The concept of hybrid identities formed through the mixing of different cultures, particularly in the context of migration and diaspora. The article discusses how modern notions of hybrid diasporas might be displaced in the context of post-Soviet Eurasia.	“How will you displace our modern notions of hybrid diasporas when you think of the restlessness of, say, Armenia?” (p. 829)
Colonial Discourse	The body of texts and practices that reinforce and justify colonial power, often by constructing the colonized as the “Other.” The article critiques the application of traditional colonial discourse models to the Soviet and post-Soviet context, arguing for a more nuanced approach.	“The problem with applying these terms to the area you cover would be merely to follow the three most powerful models of colonial discourse theory currently available.” (p. 829)
Nation-State	A political entity characterized by a defined territory and a government that presides over a culturally homogeneous population. The article discusses the complex process of nation-building in post-Soviet spaces, questioning whether these regions can be considered postcolonial.	“If we are speaking of Central Europe… the answer initially, of course, is yes, we are postcolonial.” (p. 830)
Cultural Heterogeneity	The diversity of cultures and identities within a given region, often leading to complex social and political dynamics. The article emphasizes the importance of recognizing the radical internal diversity of the Soviet empire in postcolonial analyses.	“The empire’s radical internal diversity makes this monosyllabic answer problematic.” (p. 830)
Civilizing Mission	A justification for colonialism that claims the colonizer’s role is to bring civilization to the colonized. The article draws parallels between Soviet “scientific socialism” and the civilizing missions of Western empires, exploring how these ideologies were used to legitimize imperial control.	“Is ‘scientific socialism’ comparable to ‘civilizing mission’?” (p. 828)
Anti-Imperialist Empire	A term used to describe the paradoxical nature of the Soviet Union, which was both an empire and anti-imperialist in its rhetoric. The article explores how this paradox complicates the application of postcolonial theory to the Soviet and post-Soviet context.	“Nancy Condee recently called [the Soviet Union] an anti-imperialist empire.” (p. 832)
Transnational Methodologies	Approaches in literary and cultural studies that cross national boundaries, emphasizing global connections and comparative perspectives. The article advocates for the use of transnational methodologies to study post-Soviet spaces within a postcolonial framework.	“Such work might point to a convergence among Slavic studies, comparative literature, and work now pursued in various area studies institutes.” (p. 833)

Contribution of “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Expanding Postcolonial Discourse Beyond British Colonialism: The article emphasizes the necessity of expanding postcolonial theory beyond its origins in British colonialism, arguing that “every postcoloniality is situated, and therefore different” (p. 829). This expansion is essential for understanding the complexities of post-Soviet spaces, where traditional postcolonial frameworks may not apply directly.
2. Rethinking Postcolonialism in the Context of Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies: The authors advocate for integrating postcolonial perspectives into Soviet and post-Soviet studies, stating that the Soviet Union’s legacy presents a unique case that requires a rethinking of postcolonialism to “unmoor itself from its provisional beginnings in monopoly capitalist or mercantile colonialisms” (p. 828). This suggests the need to adapt postcolonial theory to address the historical and geopolitical specificities of the Soviet Empire.
3. Challenging Traditional Colonial Discourse Models: The article critiques the application of traditional colonial discourse models to the Soviet context, noting that the “three most powerful models of colonial discourse theory currently available, belonging to the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America,” do not fully capture the dynamics of Soviet imperialism (p. 829). This calls for a more nuanced and flexible approach to colonial discourse analysis.
4. Incorporating Subaltern Studies and Feminist Perspectives: The authors incorporate subaltern and feminist perspectives, highlighting the importance of examining “the pores of elite texts to tease out excluded itineraries” (p. 829). This approach underscores the value of using literary imagination and gendered analysis to explore marginalized voices within postcolonial and post-Soviet studies.
5. Analyzing the Postcolonial Condition in Eurasian Peripheries: The article proposes a renewed focus on the cultural production of Eurasian peripheries, suggesting that these regions offer valuable insights into the convergence of politics and aesthetics, particularly in the context of Lenin’s critique of imperialism and the emergence of the artistic avant-garde as a “new internationale of form” (p. 833). This broadens the scope of postcolonial theory to include Eurasian perspectives often neglected in Western-centric narratives.
6. Critique of Russian Postcolonial Engagement: The article critiques the Russian academic engagement with postcolonial theory, particularly the concept of Russia as a “self-colonizing state” beginning with Peter the Great’s reforms (p. 835). This critique highlights the limitations and contradictions within Russian postcolonial discourse, particularly the tendency to view Russian colonization in a more positive light compared to European colonization.
   1. Proposing a Transnational and Comparative Approach: The authors advocate for a transnational and comparative approach to postcolonial studies, particularly within Slavic and Eurasian studies. They argue for the importance of considering “transnational methodologies” in postcolonial studies, which could lead to a convergence of Slavic studies, comparative literature, and other area studies (p. 834). This approach encourages a more global and interconnected understanding of postcolonial conditions.

Examples of Critiques Through “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

Title of Literary Work	Critique Through “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space”	Key Concepts
Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak	Doctor Zhivago can be critiqued through the framework of “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by analyzing how the novel’s portrayal of the Russian Revolution reflects the contradictions of Soviet colonialism and anti-imperialism. The novel’s depiction of personal and national identity struggles can be interpreted as a reflection of the complex postcolonial identity within the Soviet Union.	Postcolonialism, Anti-Imperialist Empire
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov	The Master and Margarita can be critiqued using the concept of “cultural heterogeneity” and the idea of the Soviet Union as an “anti-imperialist empire.” The novel’s blending of different cultural, religious, and philosophical elements illustrates the diverse and often contradictory nature of Soviet identity. The critique could focus on how the novel challenges the official Soviet narrative by presenting alternative histories and realities.	Cultural Heterogeneity, Anti-Imperialist Empire
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy	War and Peace can be analyzed through the lens of colonial discourse and nation-state building. The epic’s exploration of Russian identity and its relationship to European influences can be critiqued for how it prefigures later Soviet efforts to balance national identity with imperial ambition. The novel can be seen as an early exploration of the tensions that would later define the Soviet and post-Soviet identity.	Colonial Discourse, Nation-State
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn	One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich can be critiqued in terms of how it reflects the contradictions of Soviet colonialism, particularly the idea of the Soviet Union as both oppressor and liberator. The novel’s focus on the experiences of a Soviet labor camp prisoner highlights the internal colonialism within the Soviet empire and the complex power dynamics between the center and the peripheries.	Internal Colonialism, Postcolonial Identity

Criticism Against “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

1. Overgeneralization of Postcolonial Theory: Critics argue that the application of postcolonial theory to the post-Soviet space can lead to overgeneralization, where the unique historical, cultural, and political contexts of former Soviet states are oversimplified. By framing the post-Soviet space within the postcolonial paradigm, the authors may risk imposing a model that does not fully account for the region’s specificities, such as the distinct nature of Soviet imperialism compared to Western colonialism.
2. Neglect of Internal Diversity: Another criticism is that the work underestimates the internal diversity of the Soviet empire and its former republics. The focus on overarching postcolonial narratives may obscure the varied experiences of different ethnic, national, and social groups within the Soviet Union. This criticism highlights the danger of a monolithic interpretation that fails to capture the complex and often contradictory identities in the post-Soviet space.
3. Limited Engagement with Non-Russian Perspectives: The critique also points out the limited engagement with non-Russian perspectives and voices. Although the authors discuss the Soviet Union’s multiethnic nature, there is a perceived imbalance in the representation of non-Russian intellectual and cultural traditions. This can lead to a Russia-centric interpretation of postcolonialism, marginalizing the experiences and contributions of other ethnic groups in the former Soviet Union.
4. Inadequate Exploration of the Role of Soviet Ideology: Finally, some critics argue that the work does not adequately explore the role of Soviet ideology in shaping postcolonial identities. The Soviet Union’s promotion of internationalism, socialism, and anti-imperialism created a unique ideological framework that influenced the post-Soviet states’ development. Critics suggest that a deeper analysis of how Soviet ideology intersected with national and postcolonial identities would provide a more nuanced understanding of the region.

Suggested Readings: “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

1. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard University Press, 1999.  https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674177642
2. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978. https://archive.org/details/orientalism00said_0
3. Moore, David Chioni. “Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique.” PMLA, vol. 116, no. 1, 2001, pp. 111-128.
   https://www.jstor.org/stable/463645
4. Condee, Nancy. The Imperial Trace: Recent Russian Cinema. Oxford University Press, 2009. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-imperial-trace-9780195366670?cc=us&lang=en&
5. Tlostanova, Madina. Gender Epistemologies and Eurasian Borderlands. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230112817
6. Etkind, Alexander. Internal Colonization: Russia’s Imperial Experience. Polity Press, 2011. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Internal+Colonization%3A+Russia%27s+Imperial+Experience-p-9780745662848
7. Suny, Ronald Grigor, and Terry Martin, editors. A State of Nations: Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin. Oxford University Press, 2001.
   https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-state-of-nations-9780195144223?cc=us&lang=en&
8. Hosking, Geoffrey. Rulers and Victims: The Russians in the Soviet Union. Harvard University Press, 2006. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674021785
9. Rogers, Douglas. “Post-Soviet Anthropology: A Story of Two Disciplines.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 41, 2012, pp. 321-340.  https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145830
10. “Post-Soviet Studies in a Global Context: Cultural Imperialism or Multicultural Dialogue?” Cultural Anthropology, Society for Cultural Anthropology, 2021.
    https://culanth.org/fieldsights/post-soviet-studies-in-a-global-context-cultural-imperialism-or-multicultural-dialogue

Representative Quotations from “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Every postcoloniality is situated, and therefore different.”	This highlights the idea that postcolonial experiences are context-specific and cannot be universally applied. The authors argue for a situated understanding of postcoloniality, acknowledging the unique conditions of the post-Soviet space.
“The first wave of postcolonial studies was based on the British empire.”	This quotation reflects the initial focus of postcolonial studies on the British Empire and its colonies, which shaped the theoretical framework. The authors suggest expanding this framework to include other empires, such as the Soviet Union.
“Is postcolonialism appropriated by the metropolitan diaspora?”	The authors question whether postcolonialism is being used by the diaspora communities in ways that might detach it from its original context and intent, potentially leading to new forms of cultural dominance or misinterpretation.
“Our current and so-called emancipatory programs do not engage with this.”	This critique suggests that contemporary approaches to social justice and emancipation fail to fully address the complexities and legacies of older empires, including those in the post-Soviet space.
“The Soviet Union was expressly internationalist yet zealously territorial and expansionist.”	This statement captures the paradox of the Soviet Union, which promoted internationalism while simultaneously engaging in expansionist policies, creating a complex legacy for the post-Soviet states to navigate in the postcolonial framework.
“How do political philosophies of social justice relate to the overdeterminations of practical politics?”	The authors explore the tension between ideological commitments to social justice and the often contradictory realities of political practice, especially in the context of the post-Soviet and postcolonial world.
“Colonial discourse and postcolonial studies have not been good with languages.”	This critique points out that postcolonial studies have often neglected the importance of linguistic diversity, particularly in regions like the post-Soviet space, where language plays a critical role in cultural and national identity.
“Is it correct to say that the Czechs, for example, were occupied but the Uzbeks colonized?”	This question challenges the binary distinctions between occupation and colonization, particularly in the Soviet context, where different groups experienced varying degrees of control and influence from the central Soviet authority.
“The distinctness of Soviet experience finds an inverted corollary in the evolution of Russian studies in the U.S.”	The authors reflect on how Soviet history and culture have been studied in the U.S., often with a centralist view that may not fully account for the diversity and complexity of the Soviet Union’s various national and ethnic groups.
“Eurasia remains to this day an indeterminate category with an uneven history of discursive elaboration.”	This statement addresses the concept of Eurasia, which is often used in a vague or inconsistent manner, reflecting the challenges of defining this vast and diverse region within postcolonial and post-Soviet frameworks.