Introduction: “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad
“On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad first appeared in Social Text in 1992 (No. 31/32) and was published by Duke University Press. This seminal essay critically engages with the debates surrounding the conceptualization of “Third World literature,” particularly in response to Fredric Jameson’s notion that all such literature functions as “national allegory.” Prasad interrogates the conditions of possibility for a theory of Third World literature, challenging both universalist and nationalist frameworks that either assimilate or fragment cultural production. Through a rigorous critique of Aijaz Ahmad’s rejection of the category “Third World literature,” Prasad exposes the ideological underpinnings of such refusals, linking them to larger debates about cultural autonomy, Marxist critique, and global capitalist structures. He argues that the discourse surrounding Third World literature is inseparable from the political economy of knowledge production and its entanglement with postcolonial subjectivity. The article is significant in literary theory as it problematizes the binaries of national/global, allegory/aesthetic, and theory/practice, urging a reconceptualization of literary criticism that acknowledges both the material conditions of literary production and the ideological mechanisms that shape its reception. As Prasad asserts, “The alternative to such a surrender (which is what it is, in spite of a strong connotation of resistance) would be an interrogation of the very history which, by providing access to the ‘neutral’ position of knowledge, enables the critique” (Prasad, 1992, p. 60). His work remains an important contribution to postcolonial literary theory, providing a critical lens through which to examine the intersection of literature, nationalism, and global capitalism.
Summary of “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad
1. The Role of Critical Theory in Cultural Studies
- Critical theory has reshaped literary and cultural studies by shifting the focus from veneration of cultural artifacts to an analysis of the ideological processes that naturalize meaning in culture (Prasad, p. 57).
- This transformation has disrupted orthodox approaches in cultural studies and challenged the division between conceptual knowledge and its supposed opposite (Prasad, p. 57-58).
2. The Debate Over a Theory of Third World Literature
- The discussion on Third World literature was ignited by Fredric Jameson’s claim that “all Third World literature is national allegory” (Prasad, p. 58).
- Aijaz Ahmad criticizes Jameson’s generalization, arguing that it suppresses the significant differences within and among Third World literatures (Prasad, p. 58-59).
- Ahmad insists that national literary traditions are too heterogeneous to be encapsulated in a single theoretical framework (Prasad, p. 59).
3. Theoretical Approaches to Third World Literature
- Jameson’s proposal for a unified theory of Third World literature is rooted in Marxist thought, which treats global capitalism as a totalizing system (Prasad, p. 60).
- Ahmad counters that such an approach falsely assumes that the Third World is a coherent entity, rather than a set of distinct historical and economic conditions (Prasad, p. 60-61).
- The debate exposes a tension between viewing theory as a tool for uncovering hidden ideological structures versus an instrument of intellectual imperialism (Prasad, p. 61).
4. The Relationship Between Subjectivity and Representation
- The construction of Third World subjectivity involves both the internalization of colonial categories and the attempt to reclaim indigenous identities (Prasad, p. 62-63).
- Postcolonial intellectuals experience a dual existence, simultaneously acting as both subjects of knowledge production and objects of Western scrutiny (Prasad, p. 63-64).
- This contradiction is illustrated through A.K. Ramanujan’s story Annayya’s Anthropology, which dramatizes the trauma of encountering oneself as an object of anthropological study (Prasad, p. 63).
5. The Limits of Nationalist Cultural Autonomy
- Ahmad’s resistance to a unifying theory of Third World literature echoes nationalist arguments for the uniqueness of national cultures (Prasad, p. 65).
- Similar to neo-pragmatist literary critics, Ahmad’s position assumes that cultural identities should remain insulated from external theoretical interpretations (Prasad, p. 66).
- This argument aligns with bourgeois individualism, which seeks to preserve the illusion of self-contained national and cultural identities (Prasad, p. 66-67).
6. The Role of the Nation-State in Literary Production
- Literature functions as an ideological apparatus that consolidates national identity, particularly in postcolonial states (Prasad, p. 67).
- While Ahmad insists on the diversity of national literatures, he overlooks the global structures that shape literary production across nations (Prasad, p. 67-68).
- The modern nation-state, despite its claims to sovereignty, is embedded in an international capitalist order that conditions its literary and cultural forms (Prasad, p. 68).
7. Marxism, Postmodernism, and the Question of Difference
- Postmodern critiques of universal theories often celebrate “difference” as a means of resisting hegemonic structures, but Prasad argues that this can obscure deeper economic inequalities (Prasad, p. 69).
- Some postcolonial theorists, like R. Radhakrishnan, propose a multiplicity of historical narratives rather than a single “Western time,” yet this framework risks reinforcing capitalist developmental models (Prasad, p. 69-70).
- The rejection of overarching theories in favor of fragmented histories serves to legitimate a status quo in which global hierarchies remain unchallenged (Prasad, p. 70-71).
8. Allegory and the Visibility of National Identity in Literature
- Jameson’s concept of “national allegory” remains useful, but it needs to be separated from its Orientalist assumptions (Prasad, p. 72).
- Allegory has historically been suppressed in Western literary traditions in favor of an aesthetic of individualism, reinforcing the ideology of bourgeois nationalism (Prasad, p. 72-73).
- In contrast, Third World literature often foregrounds collective identity, a function of its emergence within anti-colonial and nationalist movements (Prasad, p. 74).
9. Theoretical Possibilities for a Global Literary Critique
- A theory of world literature must address the global structures that shape national literatures rather than treating them as self-contained entities (Prasad, p. 75).
- The persistence of national allegory in Third World literature reflects the historical process of nation-building under capitalism, which continually reconfigures global relations (Prasad, p. 76).
- Rather than opposing the concept of world literature to national literatures, a Marxist approach should analyze how literature functions within the international division of labor (Prasad, p. 77).
10. The Need for a Critical Theory Beyond Nationalism
- Prasad argues that both Jameson and Ahmad ultimately reproduce an outdated distinction between the West and the Third World, failing to account for their mutual imbrication in global capitalism (Prasad, p. 78).
- A genuine theory of literature must move beyond nationalist frameworks and examine the ways in which literary production is conditioned by economic and ideological forces (Prasad, p. 79).
- The challenge for contemporary literary theory is to rethink the relationship between culture and capital in a way that acknowledges both global structures and local specificities (Prasad, p. 80).
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Reference from the Article |
| Critical Theory | A mode of inquiry that investigates ideological processes that naturalize meaning in culture, challenging traditional cultural studies. | “Critical theory, by opening up a field of inquiry into the production and reproduction of subjectivities, transformed the object of literary/cultural studies” (Prasad, p. 57). |
| National Allegory | A concept by Fredric Jameson that suggests all Third World literature functions as a national allegory, encoding collective social realities. | “Jameson’s claim that ‘all’ Third World literature is national allegory” (Prasad, p. 58). |
| Third World Literature | A contested category that some argue lacks internal coherence, yet others view as shaped by common historical forces such as colonialism and capitalism. | “Ahmad claims that ‘there is no such thing as a Third World literature’ which can be constructed as an internally coherent object of theoretical knowledge” (Prasad, p. 60). |
| Postcolonial Subjectivity | The identity formation of individuals and societies in postcolonial nations, shaped by colonial and imperial histories. | “The ‘Third World’ also needs to be defined… as a time-space of subject formation, necessarily determined by imperialism, colonialism, developmentalism…” (Prasad, p. 59). |
| The Nation-State | The administrative unit that facilitates capitalism, structuring cultural and economic participation on a global scale. | “The nation-state is an administrative unit that is integral to capitalism” (Prasad, p. 63). |
| Dependency Theory | A theory that explains economic disparities between nations as a result of capitalist exploitation and the transfer of surplus value from weaker economies to stronger ones. | “Theories of dependency are useful in understanding this aspect of the nation-state” (Prasad, p. 62). |
| Uneven and Combined Development | The coexistence of different economic and social systems within capitalism, leading to disparities between nations and within societies. | “This is not a ‘presumably pre- or non-capitalist third world’ but a part of the capitalist world marked by ‘uneven and combined development'” (Prasad, p. 61). |
| Metropolitan Mediation | The role of the West in shaping the cultural and political discourse of postcolonial nations. | “Where subjectivity is the object of investigation, the importance of metropolitan mediation cannot be overstated” (Prasad, p. 64). |
| Strategic Essentialism | A concept introduced by Gayatri Spivak, referring to the temporary adoption of essentialist identities for political purposes. | “Spivak, however, reads the ‘subject-effect’ produced by the writing ‘as a strategic use of positivist essentialism in a scrupulously visible political interest'” (Prasad, p. 67). |
| Allegory vs. Symbol | Allegory is a layered, self-critical mode of signification, while symbol represents a unified aesthetic meaning. | “The suppression of allegory was necessary for the successful institutionalization of the study of literature” (Prasad, p. 79). |
| Fragmentation and Difference | Postmodern critiques of universalism that celebrate cultural and historical fragmentation as a form of resistance. | “The world is one because, for instance, one would pose similar questions to several different literatures” (Prasad, p. 61). |
| Developmental Model | The capitalist conception of history as a linear progression where the Third World is seen as “lagging behind” the First World. | “The developmental paradigm under whose aegis ‘independence’ for colonized regions became possible in the capitalist era creates the temporal order…” (Prasad, p. 79). |
| Cultural Autonomy | The idea that national cultures are self-contained and resistant to theoretical generalizations, often aligned with nationalist discourse. | “Ahmad’s claim that the differences between nations/literatures in the Third World are beyond the reach of a single theory…” (Prasad, p. 60). |
| Global Capitalism | The overarching economic system that structures relationships between nations, impacting literary production and cultural identity. | “A theory of literature in the late capitalist world, like a theory of capitalism in general, cannot proceed from one position in capitalist discourse…” (Prasad, p. 76). |
| Intellectual Mediation | The process through which intellectuals in postcolonial societies navigate between local traditions and Western theoretical frameworks. | “A somewhat unusual version of this latter dilemma is what Jameson is also stuck with…” (Prasad, p. 75). |
Contribution of “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Critique of the Universalization of Western Literary Theories
- Prasad critiques the application of Western literary theories (such as poststructuralism and aesthetic formalism) to Third World literature without accounting for colonial history and economic dependencies.
- Reference: “A theory of literature in the late capitalist world, like a theory of capitalism in general, cannot proceed from one position in capitalist discourse and take as its object another region also within it” (Prasad, p. 76).
2. Re-examination of Fredric Jameson’s ‘National Allegory’
- Prasad engages with Jameson’s claim that all Third World literature is national allegory, highlighting both its utility and Orientalist assumptions.
- He argues that the national-allegorical mode is not inherent but emerges from the material history of capitalism, imperialism, and postcolonial subjectivity.
- Reference: “The concept of ‘national allegory’ that Jameson has introduced can be a useful component of such a rethinking, but first it has to be freed from its moorings in an Orientalist paradigm” (Prasad, p. 74).
3. Rethinking Postcolonial Subjectivity
- Prasad critiques Aijaz Ahmad’s rejection of Third World literature as a category, arguing that postcolonial subjectivity is shaped by imperial history, nation-state formations, and global capitalism.
- He highlights how postcolonial intellectuals, even when critiquing Western domination, are positioned within metropolitan mediation.
- Reference: “Even as he denies any reality to non-positive factors, Ahmad’s mode of enunciating the critique reproduces the effects of metropolitan mediation” (Prasad, p. 64).
4. Theorizing the Role of the Nation-State in Literary Production
- Prasad challenges cultural nationalism, arguing that national literatures are shaped by the political economy of the nation-state rather than an essential national identity.
- He draws on dependency theory, emphasizing how the nation-state is structurally linked to global capitalism and Third World literature reflects this reality.
- Reference: “The nation-state is an administrative unit that is integral to capitalism. ‘Nations’ enter this order only by attaining statehood, which can now be defined as a prize in the competition of capitals” (Prasad, p. 63).
5. Integrating Dependency Theory into Literary Criticism
- Prasad applies Enrique Dussel’s theory of surplus value transfer to argue that economic dependency shapes cultural production.
- He suggests that literature should be understood not as an autonomous national formation but as part of a global structure of cultural dependency.
- Reference: “These corporations do not suppress national entities; rather they assume them, to such a degree that if there were not total national capitals of different levels of development they could not exist” (Prasad, p. 62, citing Dussel).
6. Critique of ‘Strategic Essentialism’ in Postcolonial Theory
- Prasad critiques Gayatri Spivak’s idea of ‘strategic essentialism’, arguing that it often reifies nationalist and cultural identities instead of critiquing them.
- He suggests that postcolonial scholars should develop new theoretical categories rather than strategically adopting essentialist ones.
- Reference: “Strategic essentialism turns out to be an awkward resolution of a false problem generated by the theorist’s attempt to use the vocabularies and figures of theory as foundational” (Prasad, p. 67, citing Dhareshwar).
7. Allegory as a Mode of Resistance in Third World Literature
- Prasad reinterprets allegory as a key mode in Third World literature, but not in the Jamesonian sense of national allegory.
- He draws on Craig Owens’ theory of allegory to argue that Third World literature utilizes allegory to expose contradictions within global capitalism.
- Reference: “The suppression of allegory was necessary for the successful institutionalization, in our case, of the study of literature” (Prasad, p. 79).
8. Problematizing the Developmental Model of World History
- Prasad critiques Western developmental narratives that frame Third World nations as ‘lagging behind’ First World nations.
- He highlights how capitalist time constructs the illusion of developmental delay, making Third World nations appear as if they exist in the past rather than as coeval participants in capitalism.
- Reference: “The developmental paradigm under whose aegis ‘independence’ for colonized regions became possible in the capitalist era creates the temporal order” (Prasad, p. 79).
9. The Need for a New Global Theory of Literature
- Prasad calls for a shift from a binary model of First World vs. Third World literature to a global literary theory that accounts for historical processes, class structures, and capitalist dependency.
- He argues that a true theory of world literature must not separate “Western” and “Third World” literary traditions but analyze their shared structural conditions under capitalism.
- Reference: “There cannot be two distinct theories of literature, one specific to the Third World and the other to the First World” (Prasad, p. 74).
Conclusion: Prasad’s Key Theoretical Contributions
- Expands Marxist literary criticism to integrate dependency theory and the role of the nation-state.
- Challenges postcolonial nationalism by critiquing its reliance on cultural autonomy and strategic essentialism.
- Refines the concept of national allegory by moving beyond Jameson’s framework.
- Critiques the developmental model that frames Third World literature as belated.
- Calls for a global theory of literature rather than First World/Third World binaries.
Examples of Critiques Through “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad
| Literary Work & Author | Critique Through Prasad’s Theory |
| Godan by Munshi Premchand | – Prasad’s argument on national allegory aligns with Premchand’s portrayal of feudal oppression and agrarian struggles as a microcosm of India’s transition under colonialism. – The novel’s depiction of rural life reveals how cultural production naturalizes ideological structures (Prasad, p. 57). – The peasant’s suffering functions as a collective identity narrative, countering individualistic bourgeois aesthetics. |
| Season of Migration to the North by Tayeb Salih | – Prasad critiques Ahmad’s rejection of a unified Third World literary theory; Salih’s novel exemplifies the hybridity of postcolonial subjectivity within a global hierarchy (Prasad, p. 63). – The protagonist’s psychological and political crisis mirrors the contradictions of postcolonial identity, shaped by imperialist epistemes. – The novel resists Western interpretative frames that attempt to universalize individualism, aligning with Prasad’s critique of First World literary assumptions (Prasad, p. 75). |
| Petals of Blood by Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o | – Ngũgĩ’s critique of neocolonialism supports Prasad’s view of literature as a site of struggle between dominant and counter-hegemonic ideologies (Prasad, p. 70). – The novel’s allegorical form illustrates Prasad’s argument that Third World literature remains deeply tied to collective social conditions, not merely personal narratives. – The representation of capitalist exploitation through indigenous frameworks reinforces Prasad’s emphasis on how cultural narratives expose the conditions of their own production (Prasad, p. 80). |
Criticism Against “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad
Theoretical & Methodological Critiques
- Overgeneralization of Third World Literature:
- Critics argue that Prasad, while critiquing universalist theories like Jameson’s, paradoxically treats “Third World literature” as a somewhat monolithic category. His emphasis on national allegory and ideological structures may risk reducing the diversity of literary production in postcolonial contexts.
- Rejection of Cultural Specificity & Aesthetic Diversity:
- Aijaz Ahmad, whom Prasad critiques, insists that Third World literatures are far too heterogeneous to be captured under a single theoretical framework. By favoring Marxist analysis, Prasad may overlook the unique cultural and linguistic histories that shape different literary traditions.
- Excessive Dependence on Marxist Frameworks:
- While Prasad critiques various ideological positions, his reliance on Marxist theory may limit his ability to fully engage with alternative theoretical paradigms such as postcolonial studies, feminist critiques, or indigenous epistemologies.
- Binary Framing of First World vs. Third World Literature:
- Prasad critiques First World literary theories but still frames literary analysis through a stark First World/Third World binary. This dichotomy may oversimplify the transnational and hybrid nature of contemporary literary production.
Conceptual & Political Critiques
- Limited Engagement with Postcolonial Theory & Subaltern Studies:
- While Prasad acknowledges subaltern studies, his focus on ideology as a structuring force does not fully integrate the ways in which postcolonial scholars like Gayatri Spivak and Ranajit Guha conceptualize subaltern voices and epistemic violence.
- Lack of Attention to Gender & Intersectionality:
- Prasad’s essay does not significantly engage with gendered perspectives in Third World literature. Feminist and intersectional critiques may argue that his framework prioritizes class struggle while neglecting how gender, race, and sexuality interact with postcolonial literary production.
- Neglect of Oral Traditions & Indigenous Literary Forms:
- The essay primarily focuses on written literature and European-influenced literary forms (e.g., the novel). Critics argue that this approach marginalizes oral traditions, folk narratives, and non-European aesthetic forms that are integral to many Third World cultures.
- Ambiguity in Defining “Third World” & “National Allegory”:
- While Prasad critiques Jameson’s concept of national allegory, he does not offer a clear alternative framework. His reliance on economic and ideological structures may ignore the ways in which national identity is constructed through culture, language, and history beyond class struggle.
Practical & Literary Critiques
- Abstract & Overly Theoretical Approach:
- Some critics argue that Prasad’s dense theoretical style makes his arguments less accessible to scholars outside of Marxist and critical theory circles. His essay, while rigorous, may not provide enough close readings of literary texts to substantiate his theoretical claims.
- Insufficient Engagement with Contemporary Third World Writers:
- Prasad’s discussion focuses on theoretical debates rather than analyzing how contemporary Third World writers engage with global capitalism, migration, and digital culture. His framework may not fully account for new literary movements and diasporic narratives.
- Potential for Reductionism in Reading Literary Texts as Ideological Products:
- While Prasad emphasizes the ideological function of literature, critics argue that this approach risks reducing literary texts to mere reflections of socio-political structures rather than engaging with their aesthetic, linguistic, and narrative complexities.
Representative Quotations from “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Critical theory, by opening up a field of inquiry into the production and reproduction of subjectivities, transformed the object of literary/cultural studies.” | Prasad argues that critical theory has shifted literary studies from merely preserving cultural works to actively analyzing how ideologies shape meaning. This aligns with Marxist and structuralist approaches to culture. |
| “Theory’s project is to bring to the surface the naturalized, concealed frames of intelligibility that enable cultural enunciation and also to produce new conceptual frames which, by providing new perspectives on the problem, enable (re)thinking in the service of social transformation.” | He asserts that theory is not just about analyzing texts but about making hidden ideological structures visible and generating new ways of understanding cultural production, particularly for political change. |
| “The ‘Third World’ also needs to be defined: again, it is understood as a time-space of subject formation, necessarily determined by imperialism, colonialism, developmentalism, and experimentation with bourgeois democracy and other forms of nation-statehood.” | Prasad critiques static definitions of the Third World, instead framing it as a dynamic space shaped by colonial histories, capitalist development, and national identity struggles. |
| “Ahmad’s claim that the differences between nations/literatures in the Third World are beyond the reach of a single theory, in its repetition of a poststructuralist truism, is faithful to a fantasy on which all national cultural identities are based.” | He critiques Aijaz Ahmad’s rejection of a unifying theory of Third World literature, arguing that Ahmad’s insistence on radical heterogeneity reinforces nationalist essentialism. |
| “The institution of literature is closely bound up with the history of the nation-state, there is no reason to take, as Jameson does, the predominance of ‘private’ ‘libidinal’ preoccupations in the literature of advanced capitalist nations as indicative of a loss of that capacity for collective expression which, it would seem, distinguishes Third World literature.” | Prasad critiques Fredric Jameson’s division between First and Third World literature, arguing that literature’s national function persists even in the West, despite its seemingly individualistic focus. |
| “The greater visibility of the national frame of reference in Third World literature may be a function primarily of the historical conditions under which these nations came into being.” | He suggests that Third World literature is more explicitly concerned with national identity because these nations emerged through struggles against colonial rule, shaping their literary forms. |
| “If the institution of literature is closely bound up with the history of the nation-state, there is no reason to take, as Jameson does, the predominance of ‘private’ ‘libidinal’ preoccupations in the literature of advanced capitalist nations as indicative of a loss of that capacity for collective expression which, it would seem, distinguishes Third World literature.” | He refutes Jameson’s suggestion that First World literature is inherently more individualistic, emphasizing that literature is always entangled with national ideology, even when it appears private or personal. |
| “The alternative to such a surrender (which is what it is, in spite of a strong connotation of resistance) would be an interrogation of the very history which, by providing access to the ‘neutral’ position of knowledge, enables the critique.” | Prasad challenges postcolonial theorists who resist theory’s generalizations, arguing that rather than rejecting theory, one should critique the historical conditions that produce theoretical frameworks. |
| “Ahmad’s narrative is not incorrect, but the developments he mentions have not wiped out the legacy of imperialism.” | He acknowledges Ahmad’s arguments but insists that colonialism’s effects persist in cultural and political structures, meaning that theorists cannot ignore global economic and historical contexts. |
| “A theory of (Third) World literature cannot be produced from any already available position… The theory has to overcome both [Western and native positions] and produce a new position, which for the present can only be a potentiality, that it will occupy and elaborate.” | Prasad argues that a true theory of Third World literature cannot simply adopt Western or nationalist perspectives; it must develop a new framework that emerges from a critique of both. |
Suggested Readings: “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature” by Madhava Prasad
- Prasad, Madhava. “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature.” Social Text 31/32 (1992): 57-83.
- Prasad, Madhava. “On the Question of a Theory of (Third World) Literature.” Social Text, no. 31/32, 1992, pp. 57–83. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/466218. Accessed 29 Jan. 2025.
- Dayal, Samir. “Postcolonialism’s Possibilities: Subcontinental Diasporic Intervention.” Cultural Critique, no. 33, 1996, pp. 113–49. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354389. Accessed 29 Jan. 2025.
- Radhakrishnan, R. “Postcoloniality and The Boundaries of Identity.” Callaloo, vol. 16, no. 4, 1993, pp. 750–71. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2932208. Accessed 29 Jan. 2025.
- Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder. “The Third World Academic in Other Places; Or, the Postcolonial Intellectual Revisited.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 23, no. 3, 1997, pp. 596–616. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344037. Accessed 29 Jan. 2025.