> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Daniel F. Vukovich wrote:
>
> > At 12:09 AM 1/21/00 -1000, Stephen E Philion wrote:
> > >Just to add to Yoshie's comments, see Aijaz Ahmad's *Classes, Nations, and
> > >Literature*...His critique of Said is very powerful...not least of all
> > >because he begins it by affirming the often heroic (I'm not big on that
> > >word, but just pardon the slippage) positions he has taken on Palestian
> > >self-determination....before he procedes to criticise the weaknesses of
> > >his theoretical model, which Yoshie has discussed below...
> >
> >
> > Absolutely wrong. Actually, the critique of Jameson in there is quite
>
> *Absolutely* wrong? Am I *absolutely* wrong, for starters, that Ahmad's
> introductory remarks to his essay on Said are not sincere praise of his
That should read, "on Said are sincere..."
Steve
> heroic stances he has taken vis the Palestinian struggle? I don't think
> one has to agree with all of Ahmad's arguments to concede at least that
> much. Now, if that is the case, how is Ahmad making an 'ad hominen'
> attack?
>
> > good, if also over-stated at points (due more to that polemological, as
> > opposed to cerebral/scholarly style of Ahmad). (Though Xudong Zhang and
> > others have argued that there is, despite the orientalism in Jameson's
> > "National Allegory" essay, some useful stuff in there for looking at -- of
> > course -- quasi- "nationalist" or anti-colonialist lit. ) The critique of
> > Said is worthless, ad hominen crap.
>
> Well,
>
> Ahmad is not actually capable of
> > critiquing Said on theoretical grounds,
>
> This just seems to be assertion, any examples?
>
> just as his (and Eagleton's)
> > "responses" to Derrida are, alas, embarassing to anyone who takes marxism
> > and socialism as, in part, intellectual or cerebral projects (I refer to
> > the Verso collection from last Fall I think). The fact that Said is
> > bourgeois and plays the piano and likes opera are, really, not that
> > important, and have nothing to do with orientalism as a concept or practice
> > or a problematic. But the hatchetman Ahmad "thinks" otherwise.
> >
>
> That's just silly, where does he say such things?
>
>
> > Much better critiques of Said have been written by, e.g., James CLifford or
> > Bruce Robbins. Nobody reads (takes seriously) Ahmad except the "left
> > conservatives" who dont read *any* post-colonialist or Subaltern Studies
> > or related work, and dont want to; it saves them a lot of bother and
> > re-confirms their ignorance. Ask or look around, you'll see.
> >
>
> Left conservatives? Gosh, all you do is throw out labels. I don't care if
> Ahmad is 'liked' or not. I do think he is quite right that most criticism
> of his book focuses on the Said chapter, which, anyone who reads Ahmad's
> book realises is not where the meat of his argument is made. That of
> course is in the first and last chapter.
>
> > Said's book has generated quite a lot of response, not least b/c it has
> > helped enrich and move the intellectual landscape in a way that few other
> > books and thinkers have. Said has his own critique in Orientalism
> > Reconsidered (from Critical Inquiry I think), in which he properly "admits"
> > that, on a gut or basic level, what he is saying there is the same thing as
> > what Fanon and Cabral have said, and that he would emphasize, even more (it
> > is in there, if you read it), the international division of labor. Said's
> > intellectual influences in that book include, Gramsci, Foucault, Raymond
> > Williams, and Vico-- and it shows. Read the damn book. If you can
> > understand what a problematic is, and if you can understand hegemony in a
> > deeper way than, say, Kissinger, you can for the most part cruise right
> > through.
> >
>
> Now this is ad hominem. Anyone who disagrees with you is a HanK Kissinger?
> You bring up Fanon and Cabral. Fanon is very popular here amongst
> nationalist Native Hawaiian students on campus. They love to quote from
> him and go on and on about the "Natives" and "settlers". But, they read
> Fanon utterly unaware of the remarkably sophisticated Marxist class
> analysis that Fanon employs in his discussion of these two entity's
> relationship. They take there to be 'natives' en masse and 'settlers' en
> masse. No sense that Fanon breaks down the categories in terms of the
> specific class structure of decolonizing nations at that time (which are,
> in many many instances now quite different, another point lost on our
> campus misappropriators of Fanon). Thus, Fanon is actually far more
> critical of the native bourgeoisie, nationalist politicians, and
> intellectual...Downright vitriolic in his treatment of them. If you ask
> me, Ahmad's first and last chapters lay out in a very reasonably argued
> fashion why the Marxism of Fanon and Cabral is lost on this generation of
> Fanon and Cabral fans...
> His argument is that Said, in an unintended fashion, has fed into that
> trend and also been used by those who want to further it.
>
> > I just think it is not right for people to criticise it without having read
> > any of it.
>
> Myself, I read Said and Foucault long before they were read by people who
> love Foucault, Said, Cabral, Fanon and despise Marx (1984)...
> Actually, I thought the the most devestating section of Ahmad's critique
> of Said was whre he demonstrates the often contradictory comprehension and
> usage of Foucault by Said. But again, one could even agree with you about
> the Said section, and still not touched at all on the heart of the book's
> arguments. Most of Ahmad's would be critics engage in this strategy, the
> *New Politics* discussion of his book is a classic example...I would hope
> you would not.
>
> > "bolshevism" in-thought (at the level of thought or intellectual practice),
> > is deeply reactionary. And that references to the "objective interests"
> > of "the" working class are more phantasy than reality.
>
> These are issues that Ahmad has actually treated rather carefully, along
> with other 'left conservatives' like Raymond Williams and EP Thompson..
> I'm not sure who it is you are responding to though. I see nothing in your
> response that is relevant to the arguments that Yoshie has made vis. Said.
> And I'm quite sure that Yoshie has also read Said btw. And Rakesh, forget
> it, find me a book the man has not read....
>
> Steve
>
>
>