Introduction: “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik
“The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik first appeared in 1994, in the journal Critical Inquiry. This essay is considered a seminal work in postcolonial studies, marking a significant shift in the field’s focus towards examining the complex interplay between globalization, capitalism, and cultural resistance. Dirlik’s analysis challenges the traditional Eurocentric framework of postcolonialism, arguing that the concept of the “Third World” itself is a product of Western discourse and has been instrumentalized to serve the interests of global capitalism. By highlighting the limitations of the “Third World” construct, Dirlik’s essay paved the way for a more nuanced and critical understanding of postcoloniality in the contemporary era.
Summary of “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik
Introduction: The Emergence of the Postcolonial Critique
- Rise of postcolonial discourse: Postcolonialism entered intellectual debates in the 1980s, largely due to the increased visibility of Third World intellectuals in Western academic institutions. Dirlik argues that this ascent has little to do with the analytical rigor of postcolonialism and more to do with global shifts in academic and cultural recognition (Dirlik, 1994, p. 329).
- Critique of postcolonialism‘s intellectual foundations: Dirlik critiques the term “postcolonial” for its lack of conceptual clarity, noting that it serves more as an expression of the arrival of Third World intellectuals in First World academia than as a critical framework with substantive new ideas (p. 330).
Postcolonialism and Global Capitalism
- Connection to global capitalism: Dirlik argues that postcolonialism’s rise parallels the emergence of global capitalism in the 1980s. The appeal of postcolonial themes stems from their alignment with the new conceptual needs arising from changes in global economic relationships (p. 331).
- Failure to address capitalism: Postcolonial intellectuals often neglect to address their complicity within global capitalism, which shapes the very discourse they use to critique colonialism and hegemony. Dirlik emphasizes the importance of acknowledging this relationship (p. 332).
The Role of Third World Intellectuals
- Intellectual production and power: Third World intellectuals in First World academia play a key role in propagating postcolonialism, but this position is inherently tied to their status within global capitalism. Dirlik stresses that postcolonial criticism often obscures its own relationship to contemporary forms of domination (p. 334).
- Postcolonial discourse as a reflection of power: Rather than representing a radical break from past intellectual frameworks, postcolonial discourse reflects the newfound academic prestige of its practitioners (p. 344).
Critique of Postcolonial Discourse
- Postcolonialism as a vague concept: Dirlik contends that postcolonialism is a nebulous term, used to describe a wide range of issues without clear definitions. Its proponents claim it offers a global perspective that transcends binaries like colonizer/colonized, yet it often reproduces the same intellectual hierarchies it seeks to dismantle (p. 333).
- Silence on capitalism: A key critique is postcolonialism’s failure to engage with capitalism as a foundational structure of contemporary global relations. Dirlik argues that by ignoring capitalism, postcolonial discourse avoids confronting the material realities of domination and exploitation (p. 335).
Contradictions within Postcolonial Criticism
- Exclusion of the marginalized: Postcolonialism, while claiming to represent marginalized voices, often excludes the actual lived experiences of the majority of people in the Third World. Dirlik points out that postcolonial intellectuals largely belong to an elite class that benefits from global capitalism, making their critique partial and limited (p. 337).
- Focus on hybridity: The emphasis on hybridity and in-betweenness in postcolonial theory, as promoted by figures like Homi Bhabha, is critiqued for failing to acknowledge the real power dynamics that shape intellectual and cultural production (p. 343).
Global Capitalism and Postcoloniality
- Postcoloniality as a product of global capitalism: Dirlik sees postcoloniality not as a break from colonial structures but as a condition produced by global capitalism. The movement of intellectuals and ideas from the margins to the center reflects the flexible and fragmented nature of contemporary capitalism (p. 350).
- Role of transnational corporations: The transnationalization of capital has led to a reconfiguration of global relations, with power increasingly concentrated in global corporations rather than nation-states. Postcolonialism, Dirlik argues, is an ideological response to this new global order (p. 351).
Concluding Criticism
- Complicity in the new world order: Postcolonialism, despite its claims of radical critique, ultimately reinforces the structures of power it claims to oppose by ignoring capitalism’s central role in shaping contemporary global relations. It serves as a conceptual framework that aligns more with the needs of global capitalism than with a genuine critique of it (p. 355).
- Postcolonial intellectuals as beneficiaries: Dirlik concludes that postcolonial intellectuals are not victims of global capitalism but beneficiaries, as their positions in Western academia are secured through the very structures they critique. Their discourse, while seemingly oppositional, is in fact part of the ideological apparatus of global capitalism (p. 356).
Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik
| Term/Concept | Description | Reference in the Text |
| Postcolonialism | A critical framework focused on analyzing the effects of colonialism and imperialism on cultures. | Dirlik critiques postcolonialism for its rise in the 1980s and its connection to global capitalism (p. 329). |
| Global Capitalism | The current stage of capitalism characterized by transnational production and markets. | Dirlik links the rise of postcolonialism with the emergence of global capitalism (p. 331). |
| Third World Intellectuals | Intellectuals from former colonies who have gained prominence in Western academia. | The term refers to the role of these intellectuals in shaping postcolonial discourse (p. 329). |
| Hybridity | The blending of cultures or identities, often associated with postcolonial theory. | Dirlik critiques the concept of hybridity as a superficial focus in postcolonialism (p. 343). |
| Hegemony | Domination of one group over others, particularly in cultural and intellectual realms. | Postcolonialism is criticized for failing to engage with contemporary hegemonies, especially capitalism (p. 336). |
| Postmodernism | A movement in arts and philosophy that challenges traditional narratives and structures of thought. | Postcolonialism is described as a product of postmodernism in its challenge to modernist ideologies (p. 352). |
| Eurocentrism | The dominance of European culture and thought in global intellectual and political practices. | A central focus of postcolonial criticism, which seeks to critique and dismantle Eurocentric narratives (p. 334). |
| Metanarrative | A grand, overarching story or theory that explains and legitimizes knowledge or power. | Postcolonialism rejects metanarratives such as modernization and Marxism (p. 334). |
| Diaspora | The dispersion of people from their homeland, often leading to transnational identities and cultures. | Postcolonialism engages with the idea of diaspora, but Dirlik critiques its lack of engagement with power dynamics (p. 353). |
| Subaltern | A term used to describe populations that are socially, politically, and geographically outside of power structures. | The term is closely associated with postcolonial discourse and thinkers like Gayatri Spivak (p. 332). |
| Cultural Imperialism | The imposition of a foreign culture onto another, often through colonial or neocolonial domination. | Postcolonialism is concerned with resisting cultural imperialism, but Dirlik questions its efficacy (p. 335). |
| Flexible Production | A feature of global capitalism where production processes are decentralized and transnational. | Dirlik connects flexible production to the rise of postcolonial intellectuals in global capitalism (p. 350). |
| Essentialism | The belief that certain groups or identities have intrinsic, unchanging characteristics. | Postcolonialism rejects essentialism, but Dirlik argues that this rejection sometimes leads to new forms of abstraction (p. 344). |
| Neocolonialism | The continued influence of former colonial powers in postcolonial countries, particularly economically. | Although postcolonialism addresses colonial legacies, Dirlik suggests it avoids confronting ongoing neocolonial exploitation (p. 355). |
Contribution of “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik to Literary Theory/Theories
| Literary Theory | Contribution | References from the Article |
| Postcolonial Theory | Dirlik critiques the rise of postcolonialism, arguing that it emerged alongside global capitalism, and he questions its critical validity. His analysis challenges the notion that postcolonialism is a radical break from colonialism, suggesting it serves the needs of global capitalism by focusing on cultural issues and ignoring economic realities. | Dirlik asserts that postcolonialism “has less to do with its rigor as a concept” and more with the “increased visibility of Third World intellectuals” in Western academia (p. 329). He also critiques postcolonialism for “mystifying contemporary problems of domination” (p. 336). |
| Marxism | Dirlik connects postcolonial criticism to Marxism but critiques postcolonialism for failing to address capitalism’s foundational role in global relations. He calls for a deeper engagement with economic structures and critiques postcolonialism for focusing on identity and culture rather than material conditions. | He notes that postcolonialism “suppresses the necessity of considering such a relationship [to capitalism]” (p. 331) and emphasizes that postcolonialism often avoids capitalism as a foundational historical force (p. 334). Dirlik stresses the need for a “cognitive mapping” of global capitalism (p. 356). |
| Cultural Studies | Dirlik contributes to cultural studies by critiquing the role of Third World intellectuals in shaping postcolonial discourse, which focuses on cultural hybridity and in-betweenness. He argues that this focus on culture, rather than on material conditions, aligns with the needs of global capitalism. | He criticizes the “postcolonial subject” for being understood in terms of hybridity and in-betweenness but without addressing the material inequalities that persist (p. 343). |
| Globalization Theory | Dirlik highlights the connection between postcolonialism and global capitalism, showing how intellectual production in postcolonial theory is tied to the rise of global capitalism. He critiques postcolonialism for contributing to the intellectual hegemony that supports the global capitalist system. | “Postcolonialism… has emerged in the context of global capitalism and resonates with the transformations it has engendered” (p. 331). He critiques postcolonial intellectuals as beneficiaries of global capitalism (p. 356). |
| Critical Theory (Frankfurt School) | Dirlik’s analysis of postcolonialism as an ideological effect of global capitalism aligns with critical theory’s focus on how ideology functions in maintaining power structures. His critique of postcolonialism’s failure to address capitalism’s role in contemporary global relations resonates with critical theory’s concern with ideology critique. | He states that postcolonialism diverts attention from “contemporary problems of social, political, and cultural domination” (p. 336) and links this to the ideological function of the discourse in maintaining capitalist hegemony (p. 356). |
| Postmodernism | Dirlik connects postcolonialism to postmodernism, suggesting that postcolonial theory’s rejection of metanarratives and focus on fragmentation is a reflection of postmodernist thinking. He critiques this stance for undermining the possibility of structural critique and resistance to global capitalism. | He describes postcolonialism as “a progeny of postmodernism” and argues that its emphasis on fragmentation and hybridity undermines the recognition of global capitalist structures (p. 352). |
| World-Systems Theory | Dirlik critiques postcolonialism for abandoning the structural analysis of global inequality, which is central to world-systems theory. He argues that postcolonialism’s focus on local, fragmented experiences neglects the larger global structures that maintain inequality and domination. | Dirlik critiques postcolonialism for rejecting capitalism as a “foundational category” and calls for a return to a structural analysis of global relations (p. 345). He aligns this with world-systems theory’s emphasis on the global capitalist system (p. 350). |
Key Contributions:
- To Postcolonial Theory: Dirlik provides a deep critique of postcolonialism’s focus on culture and identity at the expense of addressing economic structures, arguing that it aligns more with the needs of global capitalism than with radical critique.
- To Marxism: He contributes by insisting on the necessity of addressing capitalism as the structuring force of global inequalities, something that postcolonial theory often overlooks.
- To Cultural Studies: Dirlik problematizes the cultural emphasis in postcolonial discourse, suggesting it serves the interests of intellectuals in First World academia while failing to confront ongoing material inequalities.
- To Globalization and Critical Theory: He bridges these theories by examining the ideological functions of postcolonialism in relation to global capitalism, showing how intellectual frameworks often obscure power relations.
Examples of Critiques Through “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik
| Literary Work | Critique Through Dirlik’s Lens | Relevant Themes from “The Postcolonial Aura” |
| Orientalism by Edward Said | Through Dirlik’s critique, Said’s Orientalism might be seen as foundational to postcolonial discourse but limited by its cultural focus. While Orientalism critiques Western representations of the East, Dirlik would argue that it does not fully engage with how global capitalism perpetuates these power structures. | Dirlik critiques postcolonial intellectuals for neglecting the role of capitalism in shaping global power structures (p. 331). |
| The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon | Fanon’s work, centered on the psychological and physical impacts of colonialism, emphasizes the violent struggle for liberation. Through Dirlik’s framework, Fanon’s anti-colonial stance might be critiqued for being disconnected from the emerging structures of global capitalism and postcolonial complicity in these new power dynamics. | Dirlik argues that postcolonialism diverts attention from contemporary capitalist exploitation, focusing more on past colonial structures (p. 335). |
| Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe | Achebe’s novel is a foundational work of postcolonial literature, critiquing the cultural destruction brought by colonialism. However, Dirlik might critique it for its focus on cultural disintegration and identity, while not fully exploring the role of global capitalism in shaping the postcolonial African economy and society. | Dirlik critiques postcolonial works that focus on cultural identity without addressing the global capitalist forces at play (p. 343). |
| A Small Place by Jamaica Kincaid | Kincaid’s critique of colonialism and neocolonialism in Antigua is sharp, but through Dirlik’s critique, one could argue that while Kincaid focuses on the local impacts of imperialism, the role of global capitalism in maintaining postcolonial exploitation remains underexplored. | Dirlik critiques postcolonialism for focusing on local and cultural critiques while ignoring global capitalist structures (p. 350). |
Summary:
Dirlik’s critique in The Postcolonial Aura offers a lens through which postcolonial works, while valuable in their cultural critiques, might be seen as incomplete due to their failure to sufficiently engage with the economic forces of global capitalism. His critique challenges postcolonial literature to move beyond cultural hybridity and identity, to confront the ongoing role of global capitalism in shaping postcolonial societies.
Criticism Against “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik
- Overemphasis on Global Capitalism: Dirlik’s argument focuses heavily on the role of global capitalism, often at the expense of addressing the complexities of postcolonial identity, culture, and local struggles. Critics argue that while economic structures are important, reducing postcolonial discourse to a reflection of global capitalism is overly simplistic and disregards the significance of cultural resistance.
- Neglect of Cultural Agency: Critics argue that Dirlik downplays the agency of postcolonial intellectuals and cultures by framing them primarily as products of global capitalism. This perspective can undermine the achievements of postcolonial thinkers in challenging colonial narratives and asserting cultural identities.
- Dismissal of Postcolonial Criticism’s Potential: Some believe Dirlik’s critique dismisses the potential of postcolonial criticism to offer meaningful resistance to both colonial and neocolonial structures. His assertion that postcolonial discourse is complicit with global capitalism has been seen as too pessimistic, ignoring the transformative potential of the intellectual and cultural challenges posed by postcolonial scholars.
- Insufficient Engagement with Postcolonial Texts: Dirlik’s analysis has been criticized for not engaging sufficiently with the nuances of key postcolonial texts and thinkers. Instead of offering detailed critiques of specific works, his argument tends to generalize about the postcolonial intellectual landscape, which could weaken the specificity of his claims.
- Overgeneralization of the Postcolonial Intellectual Experience: Dirlik tends to homogenize postcolonial intellectuals and their positions within global capitalism. Critics argue that the experiences and contributions of postcolonial intellectuals are far more diverse and cannot be reduced to a single narrative of complicity with global capitalist structures.
- Failure to Provide Constructive Alternatives: While Dirlik critiques the postcolonial intellectual’s complicity with global capitalism, critics note that he does not provide a clear alternative framework for addressing both cultural and economic concerns in the postcolonial context. His critique, therefore, risks being seen as primarily negative without offering a path forward.
- Narrow Focus on First World Academia: Dirlik’s critique has been seen as overly focused on the position of Third World intellectuals in Western academic institutions. Critics suggest that his analysis might not apply as readily to intellectuals and movements in the Global South, where postcolonial discourse might be shaped more by local struggles than by complicity with global capitalism.
Representative Quotations from “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “When exactly… does the ‘post-colonial’ begin? When Third World intellectuals have arrived in First World academe.” (p. 329) | Dirlik critiques the rise of postcolonialism, suggesting that its prominence is tied to the visibility of Third World intellectuals in Western academia, not its conceptual rigor. |
| “The term postcolonial has achieved prominent visibility in cultural criticism, yet its meaning remains elusive and diffuse.” (p. 330) | Dirlik criticizes the ambiguity and lack of precision in the term “postcolonial,” arguing that it is often used without a clear or consistent definition. |
| “Postcolonial criticism has been silent about its own status as a possible ideological effect of a new world situation after colonialism.” (p. 336) | Dirlik argues that postcolonial criticism often fails to examine its own complicity within the structures of global capitalism that have emerged post-colonization. |
| “Postcoloniality mystifies both politically and methodologically a situation that represents not the abolition but the reconfiguration of earlier forms of domination.” (p. 335) | This quote reflects Dirlik’s belief that postcolonialism does not signify the end of colonial power but rather the transformation of these power structures in new, often invisible ways. |
| “Postcolonial intellectuals have acquired a respectability dependent on the conceptual needs of the global capitalist economy.” (p. 332) | Dirlik critiques postcolonial intellectuals for being integrated into the global capitalist system, suggesting their work aligns with its ideological needs. |
| “Postcolonialism’s critique of Eurocentrism has diverted attention from the capitalist relationships that sustain global inequality.” (p. 345) | Here, Dirlik argues that postcolonialism’s focus on critiquing Eurocentrism neglects the deeper structural issues of global capitalism that maintain inequality. |
| “Postcolonialism emphasizes the hybrid, the heterogeneous, and the contingent, but in doing so, it often loses sight of totalizing structures of domination.” (p. 343) | This quote reflects Dirlik’s critique of postcolonialism’s focus on cultural hybridity, which he believes detracts from addressing structural forms of economic and political domination. |
| “Postcoloniality represents an expression not so much of agony over identity, but of newfound power in First World academe.” (p. 344) | Dirlik suggests that postcolonial discourse is more about the power and status gained by Third World intellectuals in Western institutions than about genuine struggles over identity. |
| “The current global condition appears only as a projection of postcolonial subjectivity, not as a product of material and historical forces.” (p. 344) | Dirlik criticizes postcolonialism for focusing too much on individual subjectivity and neglecting the material and historical factors that shape the global order. |
| “Postcoloniality is a condition of the intelligentsia of global capitalism.” (p. 356) | This quote encapsulates Dirlik’s central argument that postcolonialism serves the interests of global capitalism by producing intellectuals who critique colonialism but remain within capitalist frameworks. |
Suggested Readings: “The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism” by Arif Dirlik
- Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992.
- Appiah, Kwame Anthony. In My Father’s House: Africa in the Philosophy of Culture. Oxford University Press, 1992. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/in-my-fathers-house-9780195068528
- Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Routledge, 1994. https://www.routledge.com/The-Location-of-Culture/Bhabha/p/book/9780415336390
- Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton University Press, 2000. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691130019/provincializing-europe
- Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, 1963. https://groveatlantic.com/book/the-wretched-of-the-earth/
- Gandhi, Leela. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical Introduction. Columbia University Press, 1998. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/postcolonial-theory/9780231112770
- Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Duke University Press, 1991. https://www.dukeupress.edu/postmodernism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-late-capitalism
- Loomba, Ania. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. Routledge, 1998. https://www.routledge.com/ColonialismPostcolonialism/Loomba/p/book/9780415350648
- Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/314561/orientalism-by-edward-w-said/
- 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