Post Colonialism in the 21st century

Abstract:

Before Post Colonialism developed, there was a discussion of whether the end of colonization marked the end of colonialism as well; since the colonies were now free from their colonizers (primarily the former British colonies). However, because of the coming up of the Post colonial argument, such assumptions were broken down. Post Colonialism with its archival and objective sense of history, argued that although colonization ended in the later part of the 20^th century, colonialism has continued to exist in one or the other form after that. The major concern now, however, is that in the 21^st century, amidst concepts like globalization, will it be possible to argue the same with post colonialism’s phenomenons like marginalizations, hegemonic structures, so on and so forth. The aim of this assignment, therefore, is to look at how has and how will, Post colonialism work in the 21^st century. Since, “Post colonialism as a theoretical discourse has a responsibility to speak about continuing colonial activity, and to examine injustice perpetrated against people who have less political power than others who control the time and space in which the less powerful live.” (McGillis)

The New ‘Empire’:

Imperialism has always been considered as distinct and different from colonialism. And of course it is. However, one can’t deny the fact that it has also been a part of the colonial history. Many former colonies of the British Empire would agree to this statement. Although in the 21^st century, we don’t have a King or a Queen ruling our world; it is equally true that imperialism has continued to sustain itself in one or the other way. What we now have are ‘capital-empires’. Empires today, are established by the multi-national companies, which function under the name of globalization.

Ania Loomba in her Colonialism and Post Colonialism, mentions, how according to Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, ‘contemporary global order has produced a new form of sovereignty, which should be called ‘Empire’, but which is best understood in contrast to European empires’. The following lines would make the argument clear:

               “In contrast to imperialism, Empire establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers. Empire manages hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies, and plural exchanges through modulating networks of command. The distinct national colors of the imperial map of the world have merged and blended in the imperial global rainbow.” (Negri)

So, we have understood as capital-empires is, actually this idea. These capitalist companies appear quite inclusive and all encompassing. They are global in the sense that they don’t have boundaries marking their territories. They function wherever they find profitability. The ‘flexible hierarchies’ which the quote mentions, have the person with the largest capital at the top and the one with the least at the bottom. These are flexible, only because the one at the bottom works for the one at the top. The conversation happens for business. Thus, at the first sight these ‘empires’ seem to be breaking the barriers between the Empire and the ‘subjects’ only to for their profit.

The problem when these ‘Empires’ manage public affairs and systems of governance. The 21^st century has observed many instances where a matter of public affairs is handled by a capitalist company. However, this is only one instance of how hegemonic structures are visible to post colonial eye.

The Americanization:

The turn of the century witnessed a shift in the existing World Order. The Euro centrism of the 18^th and 19^th centuries no longer held its power. With the rise of the United States as the political superpower after the Second World War, things changed drastically. In fact, the U.S became of those ‘Empires’ which Hardt and Negri mentioned. Everything from political supremacy to cultural domination the Americanization of the Third World became a matter of concern for post colonial discourse. The widespread popularity of the pop culture or that of the capitalist ideology can be considered great examples of the Americanization process.

However the greatest influence (specifically bad influence) was that of the Oriental ideology. Although the Oriental perspective hasn’t developed primarily because of the rise of the U.S, it definitely has been propagated a lot during this century. The word Islamic terrorism isn’t alien anymore for us. And we are so adapted to view a particular identity in a certain way that we don’t even think of exception.

The other aspect is that of language. The English language has been enjoying supremacy since the time of colonization in the Third World. However, the sudden rise of the brevity of expression and the mimicry of the American accent among the people of the Third World, has led to a wide range of research into this phenomenon. In fact, the Americanization of the English language helped the foreign learners to learn the language faster. American English Literature started to be taught and studied across nations. But it also confused many at same time.

Post Colonialism vs. Globalization:

“While colonialism was a frontal, more militant system of conquest and overthrow, globalization is a subtle, more nihilistic conquest and overthrow of all peripheral cultures in favour of the metropolitan culture. These are the cultures that post-colonial literatures seek to foreground, cultures especially of African nations that colonialism had earlier eroded.” (Akoh)

As mentioned earlier, although globalization appears to be very ‘angelic’; when in reality it isn’t. “Globalization is hinged on two things, namely compression of the world and global consciousness.” (Akoh) However, in the process of compression, many cultures are left at the periphery; while at the center, one nation-state rules everything. Thus, it can be argued that globalization is also a technique of imperialism in today’s time and therefore a matter of concern for the post colonial identity. What Akoh in his words calls deterritorialization:

“This infusion of one culture with another, either of dominance or cohabitation is called deterritorialization. Does one then continue to ask if on a deterritorialized world all citizens shall be equal partners?” (Akoh)

One more important note to make from Akoh’s observation is his argument on the concept of the Universal; which is often considered a defining concept of globalization:

                     “This Euro-American universalism has turned globalization (an offshoot of post modernity) into a monopolistic and exclusively monumental Western monologue whose topois and examples exclude peoples of other cultures who are usually only brought in after the conception of the original idea.” (Akoh)

What he is arguing is that when we associate the idea of universality with a Euro-American concept, we are creating a monologue centered around Western concepts wherein we easily exclude other nations. So, whenever, we have a developmental concept or formula, it is conceived in the Western world and then other cultures and nations are brought in. What results is, often the Third World nations are forced to adopt the idea. Globalization is one such concept.

Globalization, primarily centers around economic sector. Its components include, according to Akoh, international trade, international investment, and international finance. However, ‘it is no more a hidden fact that the so-called trade liberalization and inter dependencies of national economies is all built around American economic interest as a way of strengthening her power.’

Thus, it can be concluded that the Globalization phenomenon has been developed to serve the interests of the Western hegemony. And it is only made to appear convincing to the other nations

Conclusion:

The 21^st century has witnessed the former colonized nations going back to their past and rereading their histories in order to fight westernization of Americanization. However, whether that would be a successful endeavour or not, is a question. In order to decolonize themselves the former colonies have tried to come out of that dependency upon the colonial master, and therefore concepts like globalization appear very attractive to these cultures.However, it is equally true that to sustain in the fast moving 21^st century, with its advancements ranging from technology to human sciences, it is difficult for these nations to rise above their dependency on the world superpower i.e U.S. This doesn’t mean they can’t decolonize their psyches through rethinking about the normalized, accustomed, old and foreign (primarily colonial) ideologies. What we really need is the objective and just understanding of the concept of globalization; wherein each nation has an equal share of opportunities. As far as the former colonies are concerned, they really need to decolonize their minds and think about what would be their contribution to the coming centuries, in order to sustain their distinct existence.

Works Cited

Akoh, Ameh Dannis. "What is Globalization to Post Colonialism? An Apologia for African Literature." Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective 3.2 (2010): 14. web. 5 October 2019. < https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/vol3/iss2/6>.

McGillis, Roderick. "Post Colonialism in the Twenty First century." Journal of Post Colonial Cultures and Societies 1 (2010): 1-4. web. 5 October 2019. < http://www.jpcs.in >.

Negri, Michael Hardt & Antonio. "Conclusion: Globalization and the Future of Post Colonial Studies." Loomba, Ania. Colonialaism and Post Colonialism. London: Harvard University Press, 2000. 214-217. web. 5 October 2019.