“Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

“Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry first appeared in 1987 in the Oxford Literary Review. In this seminal essay, Parry critiques the emerging field of colonial discourse analysis, particularly its reliance on poststructuralist methodologies as exemplified by scholars such as Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. She argues that while these approaches successfully deconstruct the binaries and discursive frameworks of colonialism, they often marginalize or overlook the historical agency and resistance of the colonized. Parry underscores the importance of integrating the material conditions and anti-colonial struggles into theoretical frameworks to avoid reducing colonial history to purely discursive phenomena. The essay is crucial in literary theory as it challenges dominant paradigms within postcolonial studies, urging scholars to reconcile textual analysis with the socio-political realities of imperialism and liberation movements. Its emphasis on the dialectics of colonial power and resistance has had a lasting impact on the field.

Summary of “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

---

Key Issues in Theories of Colonial Discourse

1. Critique of Binary Frameworks in Colonial Discourse
   • Parry questions the reliance on binary oppositions (e.g., colonizer/colonized, self/other) in colonial discourse analysis, arguing that such models often replicate the colonial framework instead of dismantling it (Parry, 273).
   • References critiques like those of Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak, who reject these binaries in favor of exploring hybridity and ambivalence (Bhabha, 93-94; Spivak, 122).
2. Limits of Subversion through Discourse
   • While acknowledging the role of colonial discourse in undermining imperialist rhetoric, Parry critiques its tendency to emphasize textual over material resistance (275).
   • Suggests that focusing solely on deconstructing colonial texts neglects the material practices of imperialism and the active agency of colonized peoples.
3. Reevaluation of Frantz Fanon’s Contributions
   • Parry highlights Fanon’s insights into colonial ideology’s construction but critiques the neglect of his focus on material and collective resistance in favor of psychoanalytic and textual interpretations (276).
   • Fanon’s dialectical method, blending Marxism with phenomenology, provides a framework for understanding colonialism as a lived reality and not just a textual phenomenon.
4. Neglect of Native Agency
   • Current theories often fail to account for the active agency of the colonized, treating them as “muted” or complicit in their subjugation (Spivak, 131).
   • Parry argues for recognizing the historical and political contributions of anti-colonial movements and intellectuals (277-278).
5. Ambivalence and Mimicry in Bhabha’s Approach
   • Bhabha’s concept of mimicry highlights the colonized’s ability to subvert colonial authority through imitation, but Parry finds this insufficient for addressing the structural power of colonialism (Bhabha, 100-104).
   • Critiques the emphasis on discourse over tangible resistance, which risks depoliticizing anti-colonial struggles.
6. Overemphasis on Epistemic Violence
   • Parry critiques Spivak’s focus on “epistemic violence” and the supposed inability of the subaltern to “speak,” arguing it marginalizes existing resistance discourses and alternative epistemologies (Spivak, 130-131).
   • Calls for a broader engagement with liberationist narratives that challenge imperialist histories.
7. Role of Historical Materialism
   • Advocates for a return to historical materialist frameworks that consider the socio-economic dimensions of colonialism alongside its ideological and discursive aspects (Parry, 279).
   • Highlights the inadequacy of purely textual critiques in understanding colonialism’s enduring impacts.
8. Deconstruction vs. Material Politics
   • Parry critiques deconstructionist approaches for their abstract focus, which often ignores the socio-economic and political realities of imperialism (282).
   • Calls for analyses that integrate discourse with the material realities of colonization and resistance.
9. Neglect of Anti-Colonial Literature
   • Suggests current theories often undervalue anti-colonial texts by liberation movements, dismissing them as overly essentialist or nativist (284).
   • Instead, she advocates for a nuanced understanding of these texts as counter-discourses to colonial hegemony.

---

Critical Implications and Future Directions

• Need for Integration of Discursive and Material Analysis
  • Parry urges a balance between deconstructing colonial discourse and addressing the socio-economic structures that sustain imperialism (Parry, 285).
• Recognition of Anti-Colonial Voices
  • Calls for greater acknowledgment of the intellectual and political agency of colonized peoples in resisting colonial domination (Parry, 286-287).
• Engagement with Liberationist Traditions
  • Recommends revisiting liberationist texts to uncover their emancipatory potential and critique their historical erasures by dominant colonial discourse theories.

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

Theoretical Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Key References
Colonial Discourse	A system of representation through which colonial powers constructed knowledge about colonized peoples.	Parry critiques its focus on binaries and textual analysis (273-275).
Binary Opposition	The dichotomous construction of categories (e.g., colonizer/colonized, self/other) central to colonialism.	Critiqued by Bhabha and Spivak for its limitations (Bhabha, 93-94; Spivak, 122).
Epistemic Violence	The erasure of native knowledge systems and voices by colonialist frameworks of knowledge.	Spivak emphasizes this concept, critiqued by Parry for neglecting native agency (Spivak, 131).
Mimicry	The ambivalent imitation of colonizers by colonized subjects, both subverting and reinforcing authority.	Bhabha’s concept, critiqued for focusing on textual rather than material resistance (Bhabha, 100-104).
Hybridity	A state of cultural mixing and ambivalence within colonial contexts, undermining binary oppositions.	Central to Bhabha’s critique of colonial authority (Bhabha, 97).
Manichean Aesthetics	A framework of oppositional representations (e.g., good/evil, civilized/primitive) inherent in colonial texts.	Coined by JanMohamed, applied to colonial and anti-colonial literature (JanMohamed, 181).
Subaltern	Marginalized groups unable to represent themselves within dominant discourses.	Spivak’s critique: “The subaltern cannot speak” (Spivak, 122-130).
Reverse Discourse	Resistance through reappropriation and inversion of colonialist language and representations.	Seen in Fanon’s and JanMohamed’s works but critiqued by Spivak for reinstating binaries (Parry, 276-277).
Phenomenology	Study of consciousness and subjective experience; used by Fanon to explore colonial alienation.	Fanon’s dialectical method integrating phenomenology and Marxism (Parry, 276).
Dialectical Process	A method of analysis emphasizing contradictions and their resolution; central to Marxist and Fanonian thought.	Parry emphasizes its role in Fanon’s critique of colonialism (276-277).
Psychoanalytic Framework	Analyzes the psychological effects of colonialism on both colonizers and colonized.	Used by Fanon to dissect identity and alienation; applied by Bhabha in “colonial fantasy” (276).
Cultural Hegemony	Domination through cultural institutions and ideologies rather than overt force.	Critiqued for overlooking material resistance (Parry, 278).
Deconstruction	A method to reveal contradictions and instabilities in texts.	Spivak’s tool to interrogate colonial discourses; critiqued by Parry for neglecting material context (282).
Counter-Discourse	Texts and narratives created to resist and oppose colonialist ideologies.	Advocated by liberationist movements; undervalued in deconstructionist approaches (284).
Liberationist Narratives	Stories and texts emerging from anti-colonial struggles emphasizing native agency and resistance.	Critiqued for essentialism but defended by Parry as politically significant (Parry, 286-287).

Contribution of “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry to Literary Theory/Theories

---

Examples of Critiques Through “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

Literary Work	Critique by Parry	Reference to the Text
Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks	Parry emphasizes Fanon’s materialist approach, contrasting it with poststructuralist interpretations. She highlights Fanon’s insistence on revolutionary action and rejection of colonial discourse’s dichotomies.	Discusses Fanon’s revolutionary dialectics and psychoanalytic critique of colonialism (Parry, 276).
Jean Rhys’ Wide Sargasso Sea	Parry critiques Spivak’s reading for erasing Christophine’s voice as a speaking subject. She argues that Christophine represents a counter-discourse, challenging colonial and patriarchal authority.	Highlights Christophine’s agency as a figure of resistance and counter-discourse (Parry, 284).
Homi Bhabha’s Concept of Hybridity	Parry questions Bhabha’s notion of hybridity, arguing that it often downplays the material realities of colonial oppression. She critiques its focus on ambivalence rather than addressing colonial resistance.	Criticizes the abstraction of hybridity without sufficient emphasis on material struggle (Parry, 278).
Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart	Parry acknowledges Achebe’s use of realism to counter colonial stereotypes but also critiques a reliance on cultural nostalgia that risks essentializing African traditions.	Examines Achebe’s realism as both a critique of colonial discourse and a potential essentialist pitfall (Parry, 287).

Criticism Against “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

• Limited Engagement with Non-European Contexts: Critics argue that Parry’s focus remains largely Eurocentric, primarily addressing critiques of colonial discourse from metropolitan academic frameworks, rather than incorporating perspectives directly from colonized or postcolonial societies.
• Underestimation of Poststructuralist Insights: Some scholars believe Parry dismisses the value of poststructuralist approaches too quickly, particularly their contributions to understanding the fluidity of identity and power dynamics within colonial discourse.
• Overemphasis on Materialism: Critics suggest that Parry’s advocacy for materialist frameworks risks oversimplifying the complex cultural and psychological effects of colonialism, which are central to postcolonial theories.
• Limited Attention to Gender Dynamics: While Parry critiques Spivak’s portrayal of native women, some argue that her own analysis insufficiently explores how colonialism intersects with gendered power relations.
• Binary Framing of Fanon vs. Poststructuralists: Parry’s framing of Fanon as opposing poststructuralist theorists like Bhabha and Spivak is criticized for simplifying the nuances of their positions and ignoring potential complementarities.
• Neglect of Environmental and Ecological Concerns: Parry’s analysis does not engage with how colonial discourse and imperialism also shaped environmental exploitation, a topic increasingly important in postcolonial studies.
• Insufficient Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Some argue that Parry underestimates the epistemological contributions of indigenous and non-Western knowledge systems in resisting colonial discourse.
• Static View of Cultural Resistance: Parry’s focus on structural and material resistance is seen by some as limiting, failing to account for the fluid and evolving nature of cultural resistance in colonial and postcolonial contexts.
• Overgeneralization of Postcolonial Theorists: Critics note that Parry’s critiques of postcolonial thinkers such as Bhabha and Spivak occasionally generalize their works, reducing their nuanced arguments to broad theoretical trends.

Representative Quotations from “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The construction of a text disrupting imperialism’s authorized version was begun long ago within the political and intellectual cultures of colonial liberation movements.”	Parry highlights how anti-colonial critiques have deep historical roots, challenging colonialism even before postcolonial theory emerged.
“Although critics now developing a critique of colonialism do invoke Fanon, this can be a ceremonial gesture to an exemplary and exceptional radical stance.”	Parry critiques modern theorists for only superficially engaging with Frantz Fanon’s revolutionary ideas.
“Homi Bhabha rejects the notion of the colonial relationship as a symmetrical antagonism… arguing for its ambivalence.”	She critiques Bhabha’s concept of ambivalence for diluting the stark realities of colonial oppression and resistance.
“To dismantle colonialist knowledge and displace the received narrative… the founding concepts of the problematic must be refused.”	Parry advocates for a fundamental rejection of colonialist frameworks rather than their mere deconstruction.
“The subaltern cannot speak.” (Spivak cited)	Parry engages with Spivak’s assertion, critiquing its erasure of native resistance and voice.
“Fanon’s method of exposing… the taxonomy of colonialist knowledge in order to break its hold over the oppressed.”	She emphasizes the enduring relevance of Fanon’s strategies in dismantling colonialist ideology.
“Critics working from such a position might argue… a reverse discourse replicating and therefore reinstalling linguistic polarities.”	Parry critiques both colonial discourse analysis and its tendency to inadvertently reinforce colonial binaries.
“A theory assigning an absolute power to the hegemonic discourse… denies native agency.”	Parry critiques Spivak’s theory for disregarding the active role of colonized peoples in resisting imperialist dominance.
“How then do these deconstructions of colonialism’s signifying system act more radically to disrupt the hegemonic discourse than does Fanon’s method?”	Parry questions whether deconstructive approaches truly challenge colonial power structures more effectively than direct anti-colonial strategies.
“A declared project of defining ‘modes of relationship between a society and its literature’ through examining ‘the ideological structure.’”	Parry advocates for grounding literary criticism in material and ideological contexts to uncover their political implications.

Suggested Readings: “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse” by Benita Parry

1. Parry, Benita. “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse.” Oxford Literary Review, vol. 9, no. 1/2, 1987, pp. 27–58. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43973680. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
2. Ganguly, Keya. “Roundtable: Revisiting Edward Said’s Orientalism.” History of the Present, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015, pp. 65–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5406/historypresent.5.1.0065. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
3. Parry, Benita. “The Postcolonial: Conceptual Category or Chimera?” The Yearbook of English Studies, vol. 27, 1997, pp. 3–21. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3509129. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.
4. Ginsburg, Shai. “Signs and Wonders: Fetishism and Hybridity in Homi Bhabha’s ‘The Location of Culture.’” CR: The New Centennial Review, vol. 9, no. 3, 2009, pp. 229–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41949661. Accessed 17 Nov. 2024.