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

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

Term/Concept	Explanation	Relevance in Ahmad’s Critique
National Allegory	The idea that all third-world texts can be read as allegories of the nation, where personal stories are linked to national experiences.	Ahmad critiques Jameson’s overgeneralization that all third-world texts are national allegories, arguing that many deal with internal social conflicts rather than purely nationalist themes.
Third-World Literature	A body of literature from countries that have experienced colonialism and imperialism, which Jameson claims forms a coherent, unified literary category.	Ahmad rejects the existence of a unified “third-world literature,” emphasizing that the term is too reductive and ignores the diversity within these countries’ literary traditions.
Binary Opposition	A structuralist concept where two opposing ideas (e.g., first-world vs. third-world) are set in contrast to each other.	Ahmad criticizes Jameson for relying on a binary framework that simplifies the complexity of the global literary landscape, particularly by dividing the world into “first” and “third” worlds.
Cognitive Aesthetics	Jameson’s concept for understanding the aesthetics of third-world literature as shaped by the socio-political experiences of colonialism and imperialism.	Ahmad argues that this approach suppresses the multiplicity of voices and literary forms in third-world countries and imposes a homogenized view of these diverse cultures.
Orientalism	A critical concept popularized by Edward Said, referring to the Western depiction and conceptualization of the “East” as fundamentally different, exotic, and backward.	Ahmad compares Jameson’s framework to Orientalist practices, suggesting that his reading of third-world literature replicates earlier Western tendencies to homogenize non-Western cultures.
First World / Third World	Terms used in the Cold War era to classify countries as either capitalist (first world), socialist (second world), or colonized/developing (third world).	Ahmad critiques Jameson’s reliance on these outdated categories, arguing that many so-called third-world countries, like India, have complex capitalist structures that defy such classification.
Civilizational Other	The idea of one group or culture being viewed as the “other” by a dominant culture, emphasizing its difference or inferiority.	Ahmad takes issue with Jameson positioning third-world writers and cultures as the “Other” of Western civilization, which reinforces a problematic division between “us” and “them.”
Dialectical Materialism	A Marxist theory that societal development occurs through the conflict of opposites (thesis and antithesis), leading to change and progress.	Ahmad argues for a more nuanced application of Marxism, suggesting that Jameson’s binary framework overlooks the complex, dialectical interactions within global capitalism.
Hegemony	A concept derived from Gramsci, referring to the dominance of one group over others, especially in terms of ideology and culture.	Ahmad critiques Jameson’s failure to account for the role of hegemonic cultural and class formations within third-world countries, focusing instead on a narrow nationalist narrative.
Over-Determination	A concept from Althusser, indicating that a single event or phenomenon is the result of multiple causes, often used to describe the complexity of societal and literary texts.	Ahmad uses this to argue that literary texts are shaped by multiple, often contradictory, forces and cannot be reduced to a single ideological or cultural determinant, such as nationalism.
Postmodernism	A cultural, intellectual, and artistic movement characterized by skepticism, irony, and the rejection of grand narratives or universal truths.	Ahmad contrasts postmodernism with Jameson’s approach, critiquing his binary focus on nationalism/postmodernism as insufficient to explain the diversity of third-world literary practices.

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

Literary Work	Critique Using Ahmad’s Framework	Key Concepts/References from Ahmad’s Article
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o’s A Grain of Wheat	Ahmad would critique the tendency to classify all works from third-world countries as “national allegories,” arguing that Ngũgĩ’s exploration of personal and historical struggles cannot be reduced to a simplistic nationalist narrative.	“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.”
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart	Ahmad would critique Jameson’s framework if it reduced Achebe’s work to a singular nationalist allegory, ignoring the novel’s exploration of internal conflicts within Igbo society and its complex depiction of colonialism.	“The enormous cultural heterogeneity of social formations within the so-called third world is submerged within a singular identity of ‘experience.'”
Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude	Ahmad would argue that while Márquez’s work is often seen as representative of Latin America, such categorizations ignore the regional, historical, and class complexities embedded in the novel, which resist easy categorization as a national allegory.	“There is no such thing as a ‘third-world literature’ which can be constructed as an internally coherent object of theoretical knowledge.”
Buchi Emecheta’s The Joys of Motherhood	Ahmad would critique an interpretation of Emecheta’s work solely as a national allegory, arguing that the novel’s focus on gender, personal struggles, and urbanization within Nigeria challenges the simplistic nationalism/postmodernism binary.	“Nationalism itself is not some unitary thing with some pre-determined essence and value. There are hundreds of nationalisms in Asia and Africa today; some are progressive, others are not.”

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

Quotation	Explanation
“There is no such thing as a ‘third-world literature’ which can be constructed as an internally coherent object of theoretical knowledge.”	Ahmad challenges the idea of a unified third-world literature, arguing that the diversity of cultural, historical, and social contexts within these countries makes such a categorization overly simplistic.
“All third-world texts are necessarily… to be read as… national allegories.”	This quotation reflects Jameson’s assertion, which Ahmad critiques, that all third-world texts must be read as national allegories. Ahmad finds this reductionist and problematic given the diversity of these texts.
“The enormous cultural heterogeneity of social formations within the so-called third world is submerged within a singular identity of ‘experience.'”	Ahmad criticizes Jameson for collapsing the vast cultural and social differences in the third world into a single narrative of shared colonial experience, overlooking internal complexities.
“What constitutes the unity of the world is the global operation of the capitalist mode of production and the resistance to that mode.”	Ahmad argues that the world’s unity is not based on binary oppositions (like first and third world) but on the global spread of capitalism and the resistance to it, which transcends national boundaries.
“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.”	Ahmad critiques Jameson’s blanket categorization of third-world texts, arguing that it excludes diverse narratives and forms that do not fit the ‘national allegory’ model.
“Jameson’s framework tends to homogenize third-world literature much in the same way Orientalist scholarship has historically presented non-Western cultures.”	Ahmad draws a parallel between Jameson’s generalizations and Orientalist practices, which also homogenized and misrepresented the complexities of non-Western societies.
“The notion of a third-world culture based exclusively upon ‘the experience of colonialism and imperialism’ is a vast oversimplification.”	Ahmad critiques Jameson for reducing third-world cultures to a singular experience of colonialism, ignoring other social, political, and cultural factors that shape these literatures.
“Nationalism itself is not some unitary thing with some pre-determined essence and value. There are hundreds of nationalisms in Asia and Africa today; some are progressive, others are not.”	Ahmad critiques the idea that nationalism in the third world is a monolithic ideology. He emphasizes that nationalisms are diverse, with varying political implications and outcomes.
“Literary texts are produced in highly differentiated, usually very over-determined contexts of competing ideological and cultural clusters.”	Ahmad argues for recognizing the complex, multi-layered contexts in which literature is produced, rejecting Jameson’s reduction of third-world texts to a single ideological framework.
“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.”	Ahmad expands the theoretical scope to argue that the unity of the world comes not from binary divisions like first and third worlds but from the global spread of capitalism and the varied resistance to it.

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.