The postcolonial approach excites me because it specifically addresses the political and economic situations in the world that Marxists have beef with. While it’s nice to consider capitalism as an evil system, nobody these days can deny the positive force of free trade and free money movement to get nations balling rich quick. Just look at US, we did it the fastest in history. Still, Marxist criticism of the ways we westerners go about getting rich are still valid. If you don’t have any Kapital in this system, you really aren’t going to make any money. If you don’t have any social or human capital, you aren’t going to get any borrowed Kapital. However, instead of pressuring their governments to better equip the masses for participation in the new, globalized economy, Marx and his homeboy advocated a return to mercantilism, effectively dropping the ball on establishing a wider network of representation for the marginalized in the new economy. Although the term ‘racism’ was still a good half century away (meaning Marx and Engels probably didn’t care about colonized peoples) they still failed to realize that their anger was felt worldwide. Also, they failed to see that history does not move backwards and thus, reactionary causes will always be met with contempt either by those who have already progressed, or those who are marginalized but desire progress. Reconciling the goals of these power groups is a central aspect of the postcolonial struggle.
In considering the identity and aim of the "super reader" as a consideration of all experiences, perspectives and layers of analysis within a works that "focus on specific issues", Barry claims attempting to be a "super-reader" will inevitably produce "superficiality" because experiences "have to emerge and declare themselves with some urgency" (198-199). To me, this undermines the entire goal of addressing the specific experiences of different peoples and their struggles at self-determination. As a western reader, one knows they have not had the experience of being colonized. However, I would hope everyone has come into contact with people of different backgrounds or at least read something about their history. If one has not, they are likely part of the constructed notions of white and western superiority that postcolonial literature seeks to reproach. Still, to refrain from theorizing about the experience of a character simply because they are different is probably to miss the point of the work. In order to internalize the struggle of others, readers must know the character’s experience and then reflect on how their own experience fits in the puzzle of colonialism. Again, I would hope readers feel the “urgency” to reverse oppression, rather than reading and theorizing about postcolonial literature as an exercise in “political correctness”. However, that might take literature out of the realm of theory and put it into real life.
Basically, I don’t think Barry is giving enough credit to informed readers. It’s nice to categorize and enumerate what postcolonial scholars do, but it’s much more useful to know what postcolonial literature does. Barry must be from Britain, where Tom Robbins claims “cowardice in the name of objectivity is fairly common”. I think he is guilty of this. In my country white people also know black people, and brown people, and white immigrants. This makes postcolonial literature a wealth of new experience for modern, accepting people. If you are concerned with “political correctness” I think you are scared of other people because you don’t know dick about them. I think Barry is scared white people will muddy up other people’s experiences if he tries to confront them and understand them. I think he would make it in
