从后结构主义和马克思主义到后殖民文化颠覆和对曾经被殖民者的政治反抗

Saima Sultana
{"title":"从后结构主义和马克思主义到后殖民文化颠覆和对曾经被殖民者的政治反抗","authors":"Saima Sultana","doi":"10.36892/ijlls.v5i4.1471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract \nContemporary political movements such as Marxism and post-Marxism, as well as intellectual and academic movements such as post-structuralism, postmodernism, and psychoanalysis have had a great influence on postcolonial literary criticism. There has been so much debate around the question whether issues of colonial/neocolonial domination and decolonial resistance should be regarded as political or cultural issues or as a combination of both political and cultural sectors (including ethical and psychological points of view) that the terms “political”, “cultural” themselves have appeared to be relative terms–assuming different meanings at different times. This paper will show how such poststructural conflations of the “political” and “cultural” regarding the issues of both domination and resistance can appear as problematic for postcolonial context where the division between the two terms appears so obvious at times that the boundary between them is inescapably erected once again producing ultimately an ambivalence. However, whatever the approach is to colonial/neocolonial dominations, and whatever the mode of resistance is proposed to challenge them, whether it is political or cultural or psychological, radical or liberal, or conflation of them, every discussion ultimately produce a liberal self-criticism at the cost of the once-colonized peoples, states and their cultures.","PeriodicalId":34879,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language and Literary Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Post-structuralism and Marxism to Postcolonial Cultural Subversion and Political Resistance against the Once-colonized\",\"authors\":\"Saima Sultana\",\"doi\":\"10.36892/ijlls.v5i4.1471\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"abstract \\nContemporary political movements such as Marxism and post-Marxism, as well as intellectual and academic movements such as post-structuralism, postmodernism, and psychoanalysis have had a great influence on postcolonial literary criticism. There has been so much debate around the question whether issues of colonial/neocolonial domination and decolonial resistance should be regarded as political or cultural issues or as a combination of both political and cultural sectors (including ethical and psychological points of view) that the terms “political”, “cultural” themselves have appeared to be relative terms–assuming different meanings at different times. This paper will show how such poststructural conflations of the “political” and “cultural” regarding the issues of both domination and resistance can appear as problematic for postcolonial context where the division between the two terms appears so obvious at times that the boundary between them is inescapably erected once again producing ultimately an ambivalence. However, whatever the approach is to colonial/neocolonial dominations, and whatever the mode of resistance is proposed to challenge them, whether it is political or cultural or psychological, radical or liberal, or conflation of them, every discussion ultimately produce a liberal self-criticism at the cost of the once-colonized peoples, states and their cultures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Language and Literary Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Language and Literary Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v5i4.1471\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language and Literary Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v5i4.1471","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 马克思主义和后马克思主义等当代政治运动以及后结构主义、后现代主义和精神分析等思想和学术运动对后殖民主义文学批评产生了巨大影响。围绕殖民/新殖民统治和非殖民化抵抗问题究竟应被视为政治问题还是文化问题,抑或是政治和文化领域(包括伦理和心理观点)的综合问题,一直存在着大量的争论,以至于 "政治"、"文化 "这些术语本身似乎都是相对的--在不同时期具有不同的含义。本文将说明,在后殖民语境中,"政治 "和 "文化 "这两个术语之间的分界有时显得如此明显,以至于它们之间的界限不可避免地再次竖立起来,最终产生矛盾。然而,无论以何种方式对待殖民统治/新殖民统治,无论以何种反抗方式来挑战殖民统治/新殖民统治,无论是政治的、文化的、心理的、激进的、自由的,还是将它们混为一谈的,每一次讨论最终都会以曾经被殖民的民族、国家及其文化为代价,产生一种自由主义的自我批判。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From Post-structuralism and Marxism to Postcolonial Cultural Subversion and Political Resistance against the Once-colonized
abstract Contemporary political movements such as Marxism and post-Marxism, as well as intellectual and academic movements such as post-structuralism, postmodernism, and psychoanalysis have had a great influence on postcolonial literary criticism. There has been so much debate around the question whether issues of colonial/neocolonial domination and decolonial resistance should be regarded as political or cultural issues or as a combination of both political and cultural sectors (including ethical and psychological points of view) that the terms “political”, “cultural” themselves have appeared to be relative terms–assuming different meanings at different times. This paper will show how such poststructural conflations of the “political” and “cultural” regarding the issues of both domination and resistance can appear as problematic for postcolonial context where the division between the two terms appears so obvious at times that the boundary between them is inescapably erected once again producing ultimately an ambivalence. However, whatever the approach is to colonial/neocolonial dominations, and whatever the mode of resistance is proposed to challenge them, whether it is political or cultural or psychological, radical or liberal, or conflation of them, every discussion ultimately produce a liberal self-criticism at the cost of the once-colonized peoples, states and their cultures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信