We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3
colonial discourse This is a term brought into currency by
Edward Said who saw Foucault’s notion of a discourse as
valuable for describing that system within which that range
of practices termed ‘colonial’ come into being. Said’s Orien-
talism, which examined the ways in which colonial discourse
operated as an instrument of power, initiated what came to
be known as colonial discourse theory, that theory which, inthe 1980s, saw colonial discourse as its field of study. The
best known colonial discourse theorist, apart from Said, is
Homi Bhabha, whose analysis posited certain disabling contra-
dictions within colonial relationships, such as hybridity,
ambivalence and mimicry, which revealed the inherent
vulnerability of colonial discourse.
Discourse, as Foucault theorizes it, is a system of state-
ments within which the world can be known. It is the system
by which dominant groups in society constitute the field of
truth by imposing specific knowledges, disciplines and values
upon dominated groups. As a social formation it works to
constitute reality not only for the objects it appears to repre-
sent but also for the subjects who form the community on
which it depends. Consequently, colonial discourse is the
complex of signs and practices that organize social existence
and social reproduction within colonial relationships.
Colonial discourse is greatly implicated in ideas of the
centrality of Europe, and thus in assumptions that have
become characteristic of modernity: assumptions about
history, language, literature and ‘technology’. Colonial
discourse is thus a system of statements that can be made
about colonies and colonial peoples, about colonizing powers
and about the relationship between these two. It is the system
of knowledge and beliefs about the world within which acts
of colonization take place. Although it is generated within
the society and cultures of the colonizers, it becomes that
discourse within which the colonized may also come to see
themselves. At the very least, it creates a deep conflict in the
consciousness of the colonized because of its clash with other
knowledges (and kinds of knowledge) about the world. Rules
of inclusion and exclusion operate on the assumption of the
superiority of the colonizer’s culture, history, language, art,
political structures, social conventions, and the assertion of
the need for the colonized to be ‘raised up’ through colonial
contact. In particular, colonial discourse hinges on notions of
race that begin to emerge at the very advent of European
imperialism. Through such distinctions it comes to represent
the colonized, whatever the nature of their social structuresf:.,and cultural histories, as ‘primitive’ and the colonizers as
‘civilized’.
«Colonial discourse tends to exclude, of course, statements
-;,-about the exploitation of the resources of the colonized, the
political status accruing to colonizing powers, the importance
to domestic politics of the development of an empire, all of
which may be compelling reasons for maintaining colonial
ties. Rather it conceals these benefits in statements about the
inferiority of the colonized, the primitive nature of other
traces, the barbaric depravity of colonized societies, and there-
fore the duty of the imperial power to reproduce itself in the
colonial society, and to advance the civilization of the colony
through trade, administration, cultural and moral improve-
ment. Such is the power of colonial discourse that individual
colonizing subjects are not often consciously aware of the
duplicity of their position, for colonial discourse constructs
the colonizing subject as much as the colonized. Statements
that contradict the discourse cannot be made either without
incurring punishment, or without making the individuals who
make those statements appear eccentric and abnormal.
Further reading: Bhabha 1994; Said 1978; Spivak 1987.