Forum: Conference Debates

Forum: Conference Debates

The antisocial Thesis in queer Theory

819 RobertL.Caserio

821 LeeEdelman

823 JudithHalberstam

825 JoséEstebanMuñoz

826 TimDean

are We postcolonial? post-soviet space

828 GayatriChakravortySpivak

829 NancyCondee

831 HarshaRam

833 VitalyChernetsky

�Appearing�occasionally�as�a�feature�of�

the�Forum,�“Conference�Debates”�sum-

marizes�the�discussions�that�emerged�

at�recent�controversial�conference�ses-

sions.�Panel�participants�are�invited�to�

submit�brief�accounts�of�their�positions�

in�the�light�of�the�ensuing�conversation.�

Panels�for�“Conference�Debates”�are�se-

lected�by�the�pMLa�Editorial�Board.

The�Antisocial�Thesis�in�Queer�TheoryMLAAnnualConvention27December2005,Washington,DCProgramarrangedbytheDivisiononGayStudiesinLanguageandLiterature

The Antisocial Thesis in Queer Theory

“Shouldahomosexualbeagoodcitizen?”LeoBersaniaskedinHomosin1995,expressingagayskepticismthathasdoggedeveryupsurgeofgaypoli-tics.Bersani’sdoubtresultsfromhisdiagnosisof“therageforrespectability...ingaylifetoday.”Helocatesthatrageinpostmoderndissolutionsofgayidentity,inclamorsforgaymarriageandgayparenting,inqueerantisep-ticizingsofgaysex.“Usefulthought,”Homossuggests,mightresultfrom“questioningthecompatibilityofhomosexualitywithcivicservice.”Andfromquestioningmore:Bersanimakesaclaimaboutsocialbeingitself.Hehypothesizes“thathomo-ness...necessitatesamassiveredefiningofrela-tionality,”thatitinstances“apotentiallyrevolutionaryinaptitude—perhapsinherentingaydesire—forsocialityasitisknown.”Ifthereisanything“politicallyindispensable”inhomosexuality,itisits“politicallyunaccept-able”oppositiontocommunity.ThusHomosparadoxicallyformulateswhatmightbecalled“theantisocialthesis”incontemporaryqueertheory.

Bersani’sformulationandotherslikeithaveinspiredadecadeofex-plorationsofqueerunbelonging.Meanwhile,pacescholarship,gayragefornormalizingsociability—tojudgebythegay-marriageboomalone—hasin-tensified.Givensuchdivergentdevelopments,IsuggestedtomycolleaguesontheMLA’sDivisionExecutiveCommitteeforGayStudiesinLanguageandLiteraturethatstocktakingoftheantisocialthesismightbeinorder.AnMLAconventionpanelinWashingtoncouldassessscholarship’sgainsfromthethesisandwherethethesismightbeheaded.ItmightconsiderwhetherargumentssuchasHomos’sjustlyconnectsuspicionofgay-rightspolitics

1 2 1 . 3 ]

[ ©2006bythemodernlanguageassociationofamerica ] 819

withsubversionof“socialityasitisknown.”Itcouldaskiftheantisocialthesishedgesitsbets(considerBersani’suseof“potentially,”“perhaps,”and“as it isknown”inthecitationsabove).Itmightprobetheadequacyofevidencefortheanti-socialthesisthatisdrawnfromaestheticartifacts.

Takingonsuchquestions,TimDean,LeeEdelman,JudithHalberstam,andJoséMuñozsignedontothepanel,anddeliveredstronglythoughtfulstatements,infifteenminuteseach,toaraptoverflowaudience.Iwouldlike,asIamsureotherswould,toseethepapersexpandedandtoseethemgarneravolumeofresponses.Itaketheopportunityofthispostconventionprintforumtoinitiateafewpossibleresponses.

Didpanelistsoveridentifytheantisocialthe-siswithEdelman?Doingsoperhapsblinkeredspeculationandproducedunintendedconfirma-tionsofhisposition.DisagreeingwithEdelman’sargumentinNo Future,Muñozinvertsit:queershavenothingbutafuture(albeittheyhavepastpoetsprophesyingXanadu).Theinversionevokesthenineteenth-centuryfindesiècleideathatgayshaveavocationtoredeemtheireroticpleasuresforeveryone’sfuturebenefit.Heroicqueerrespon-sibilitytodemocratic,anticapitalist,andanti-imperialistprogressinformsthepagesofEdwardCarpenter,J.A.Symonds,OscarWilde,FrederickRolfe,andRonaldFirbank.Theliterary-politicalfantasiesofthosefiguresengenderedthepersonaeofRogerCasementandT.E.Lawrence.Infictionandinfact,attheheadofthepreviouscentury,onefindsanarrayofcitizenqueens.Butwhymustagaybeastofburdenperenniallyundertaketheworkofanticipatoryprogress?ThatisEdelman’sforcefulquestionandprotest;andMuñozdoesnotfullyescapeEdelman’sforce.

ThepowerofEdelman’sperspectivepartlyderivesfromitsbearingonacultoffamilyintheUnitedStatesthatneverquestionsthevalueofbiologicalreproductionandofchildren’ssensibili-ties.Toharponchildrenmeanstoharponpar-enthood;bothemphasesleavenonreproductiveerosinthelurch.Apparently,whatreallymattersis,asEdelmanhaswritten,“arealityguaran-teed,notthreatenedbytime,[but]sustainedbythecertainty”ofimmortality.No FuturerewritesFreud’sThe Future of an Illusion:Americanfamilyandchildren,andthenation,havebecomesubsti-

tutesforreligion’spromises.Thesubstitutesshareaninfantilebeliefinthelifetocome.Incontrast,homos,Edelmanmakesonethink,aregrown-upenoughtofacemortality.

ButjusthowempiricalanAmericanrealityisNo Futureintouchwith?OneofDean’sstrongcontentionsisthatEdelman,ortheantisocialthe-sisgenerally,doesnotdistinguishstructuralclaimsabouttheunconsciousfromempiricalclaimsaboutculture.Deanalsoremindsusthatchildrenareperverselyconstituted,hencequeer-friendlierthanEdelmanadmits.Isthereminderasideblow,how-ever,becausetheversionofchildhoodthatbulliesAmericanqueerdomisnotFreudian?Dean’smostchallengingidea—thattheantisocialthesisisreallyapresocialthesis—criesoutforsupplementationbyDean’sBeyond Sexuality,inwhichDeanarguesthattheaestheticrealmmatchesqueereros,open-ingupnewrelationalforms.

Thescholarshipofallthepaneliststraversestheaestheticrealm.Thatrealm,perhaps,isthequeerest:relationalandarelational,stimulatingsociabilityandpoliticalideasyetlargelyindiffer-enttorealizingthem.Inthenameofaesthetics,ImightmosthavequarreledwithHalberstam’sin-tentiontodiscreditBersaniandEdelman’s“nega-tivity”onthegroundsofthe“excessivelysmallarchive”theyappealto—thoseelitewhiteboysGideandProust.HalberstamthinksthatJamaicaKincaid,ValerieSolanas,andFinding Nemocon-stitutetherightlybroadarchivethatvouchesforqueereros’spoliticalandsocialefficacy.IthinkHalberstam’sarchiveisonlyademoticcounter-snobberyforthesnobberysheopposes.If,how-ever,onetakesheradvicetoextendthearchive,whatwillbecomeclearisthathomosexualerosisnotmorearelationalthanitsalternative.TheeraofCarpenterandcompanyincludesanunparalleledassaultonheterosexualinstitutions—onmarriageandchildrenandtheirinsuranceoffutures—byheterosexuals.Mostliterarywritingfrom1890–1945doesnotholdabrieffordefensesagainsttimeanddeath.Aninfluentialpopulararchiveoffictionsthussuggestsanundeclaredstraight-gayalliance,foundedinagreementabouttheinapti-tudeofallerosforsociality.Thealliance,howeverunacknowledged,hasunderminedconventionalmodelsofpolitics,anditperhapscanlocateitselfonlyinthekindofthoughtthatcharacterizeswhat

820� Forum:�Conference�Debates [ P M L A

thephilosopherToddMaycallspoststructuralistanarchism.Byinvokingthisalliance,Imeantosuggestthatwhatisatstakeintheantisocialthesisinqueertheoryisofinterestnotonlytohomos.

Robert L. Caserio PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,UniversityPark

Works Cited

Bersani,Leo.Homos.Cambridge:HarvardUP,1995.Edelman,Lee.No Future: Queer Theory and the Death

Drive.Durham:DukeUP,2004.

Antagonism, Negativity, and the Subject of Queer Theory

LastDecember’sMLApanelonthe“antisocialthe-sisinqueertheory”featuredheateddebateaboutthelogicof(hetero)sexualideologyasitshapesourpervasiveunderstandingsofpolitics,temporality,andsocialrelations.1TakingaspointsofreferenceLeoBersani’sfoundationalanalysisofsexuality’sinherentantipastoralism(seeThe Freudian Body andHomos)andmyown,morerecentcontributiontothefield,No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive,thispanelbroughttogetheradvocatesofpo-liticalnegativity(JudithHalberstamandme)andthosepromotingapracticetheydefined,instead,asqueerutopianism(JoséMuñozandTimDean).Morethanadust-upintheacademicenclaveallot-tedtoqueertheory,thisdiscussioncuttotheverycoreofourprofession’srelationtopolitics,history,andthehumanisticsubject.Thoughneverexplicitlyframedassuch,onequestionsubtendedthedebate:doournarrativesofpoliticalefficacy,historicistanalysis,andpedagogicalpracticenaturalizewhatNo Future designatesas“reproductivefuturism,”thuscompellingusall,regardlessofpoliticalaffili-ationorcriticalmethod,toprostrateourselvesatthealtarofwhatIproposetocalltheFuturch?

Sincespatiallimitationsprecludemyrehears-ingandrespondingtoeachofthepapers,I’lldis-pensewiththequeerutopiansatoncetoattend,instead,totheissueItakewithmycompatriotinnegativity—thatItake,moreprecisely,withJudithHalberstam’saccountofnegativity.Todispensewiththequeerutopians,though,isnottodismisstheirpositionbutsimplytosuggestthatI’veal-readyaddressedthatpositioninNo Futureitself.

Neitherliberalinclusionism,withitsultimatefaithinrationalcomprehension,northeredemptivehopeofproducingbravenewsocialcollectivitiescanescapetheinsistenceoftheantisocialinsocialorganization.IfFreudobservesofpsychicstruc-turesthatanxietystrikesonlywhat’sorganized,wemustnoteaswellthatorganizationdependsoninternalantagonism,ontheself-constitutingten-sionofnegativitythatformsofliberalutopianism,oblivioustotheirownparticularwaysofreproduc-ingreproductivefuturism,fittinglylocatenowhere.Thus,proponentsofliberalutopianismfailtorec-ognizewhatAdornoputsowell:“Societystaysalive,notdespiteitsantagonism,butbymeansofit”(320).Happytoearntheirapplause,instead,byputtingthepuppetofhumanismthroughitspassionplayonceagain,theyleaditinahymntotheFuturchevenwhiledressedinhereticaldrag.Delightfullydruggedbytheharmony,thefreedomfromharm,thattheirharmoniespromise,theyin-duceusalltonodalong,persuadedthatwe,liketheirpuppet,onwhichmosthumanitiesteach-ingdepends,shallalsoeventuallyovercome,forknowledge,understanding,andprogressmust,inthefullnessoftime,setusfree.

JudithHalberstam,tohercredit,won’tbuyit.Colleagueinarms,shejoinsmeinrespond-ingtosociality’sself-resistance,toitsstructurallydeterminativeviolence,andsototheinescapableantagonismthatnoutopianismtranscends.InherpaperforourMLApanel,asindeedthroughouthercareer,thepolemicalenergyofHalberstam’sworkrefusesthenormsthatperpetuatethe“com-fortzone”ofdominantculturalforces.Instead,sheaffirmsanangry,uncivil“politicsofnegativ-ity”—apoliticsinwhichwhattroublesmeisn’titsnegativitybutitsaffirmation.

Take,forexample,herinvectiveagainstwhatshesweepinglyassertsisthe“gaymale”archive’s“neat, clever, chiasmic,punningemphasisonstyle.”Puttingasidetheconsiderableemphasisonstylethatinformsherownwriting,puttingasidetheconservative,homophobicagendathattendstolurkbehindmostmoderndenigrationsof“style,”puttingasidethereductive identitarianismofpositingasingle,coherent“gaymalearchive,”wemightaskwhatpolicingstylehastodowiththe“politicsofnegativity.”Orrather,andhere’stheimportantpoint:isn’tsuchapolicingofstyle,even

1 2 1 . 3 ]� Forum:�Conference�Debates 821

whenaimedatdestroyingtoo-comfortable,nor-mativesocialpractices,thesortofreactivetrans-gression,permitmetocallitanarcho-oedipality,thatpaysthosereassuringnormsthef latteringtributeofimitation?Doesn’titsuppose,afterall,itsownreassuringlyregulatedorderinwhichonecanalwaysknowinadvancewhatagivenstylemeansorallows?Doesn’titrelyonafaithinthefixedself-identityofthings,ontheirlegibleco-herence,unmarkedbytherupturingexcessofwhatwemightseeasaqueerremainder?Doesn’titassumethatstyleslike“boredom,indifference,ironicdistancing”admitofsomepositivedistinc-tionfromothers,likerudeness,sincerity,spite?

CouldareaderofNo Future,forexample,thinkHalberstamwhollyunironicinadducingmybookasaninstanceofthe“gaymalearchive”’ssmallrangeofaffect—arangeshepretendstobelievemakesnoroomforintensity,overinvest-ment,oranger?2Butwecan’t,ofcourse,actuallyknowifshe’sbeingironichereornot.Thelimitpointofknowledge:that ’sthelocusofnegativ-ity.Affirming,however,asapositivegood,“punkpugilism”anditsgesturalrepertoire,Halberstamstrikestheposeofnegativitywhileevacuatingitsforce.IfocusonherexplicitembraceofpunktodistinguishthepointImakeinNo Future fromthe“antisocial”politicsshelocatesintheSexPis-tols’anthem“GodSavetheQueen.”Thoughorigi-nallycalled“NoFuture,”“GodSavetheQueen”doesnot,infact,dissentfromreproductivefutur-ism.ItconventionallycallsforEnglandtoawakefromthe“dream”thatallows for“nofuture”whileimplyingthatthedisenfranchised,those“flowersinthedustbin”forwhomthesongspeaks,holdtheseedsofpotentialrenewal.“We’rethefuture,”ittellsus,againstitsrefrain,“Nofuturefor you.”Ironically,givenHalberstam’sdismissalofstyle,itspunknegativitythussucceedsonthelevelofstylealone.Takenaspoliticalstatement,it’slittlemorethanOedipalkitsch.Forviolence,shock,as-sassination,andragearen’tnegativeorradicalinthemselves;mostoftentheyperformthefunda-mentalistfaiththatalwaysinspiritstheFuturch:theaffirmativeattachmentto“sense,mastery,andmeaning,”inHalberstam’swords.

No Future,bycontrast,approachesnegativityassociety’sconstitutiveantagonism,whichsustainsitselfonlyonthepromiseofresolutioninfuturity’s

timetocome,muchascapitalismisabletosustainitselfonlybyfindingandexploitingnewmar-kets.Asthefigureofnonproductivity,then,andofthesystem’sironicincoherence,thequeerboththreatensandconsolidatestheuniversalempireoftheFuturch.Butwhatthreatensitmostisqueernegativity’srefusalofpositiveidentitythroughadrivelikeresistancetotheviolence,theoriginaryviolation,effected,asAdornowrites,by“theall-subjugatingidentityprinciple”(320).Inopposingthatprinciple,internalizedastheengineofrepro-ductivefuturism,queernegativityopposesthesubjectofhumanisticteachingaswell.Iturgesustoimagineapedagogynotlinkedtothedominant“serviceofgoods”(Lacan303),apedagogyinflectedbythequeerremainderthateverygooddenies.

Approachingthehumanitieswithoutanyneedtopreservethesubjectofhumanism:thisdefinesmycurrentproject,whichI’mcallingBad Education,aswellastheimpulsecharacterizingHalberstam’sworkatitsbest.Byconfusing,how-ever,theabidingnegativitythataccountsforpo-liticalantagonismwiththesimpleractofnegatingparticularpoliticalpositions,Halberstamseemstomisrecognizeherownmosteffectivepoliticalclaims.Shetranslates,muchliketheSexPistols,theradicalchallengeof“NoFuture”intonoth-ingmorethanareformistreproachtoauthority:“Nofuturefor you.”SuchapathleadsusbacktotheFuturch,wherespuriousapostlesofnegativ-ityhammernewidolsoutoftheirgood,whiletheaimofqueernegativityisrathertohammerthemintothedust.Intheprocess,though,itmustnotmaketheswingofthehammeranendinitselfbutfaceuptopoliticalantagonismwiththenegativityofcriticalthought.Darewetrace,then,theun-traversablepaththatleadstonogoodandhasnootherendthananendtothegoodassuch?Ifso,ourchiasmicinversionsmaywellguideusbetterthan“GodSavetheQueen.”

Lee Edelman TuftsUniversity

Notes

1.Thisessayattemptstorespondtothedebateen-gagedattheMLApanel.ItdoesnotattempttosummarizethepaperIpresented.Thatpaperisforthcominginaspe-cialissueofSAQtitledAfter Sex? On Writing since Queer Theory,editedbyJaneyHalleyandAndrewParker.


2.InherMLApresentation,forinstance,Halberstamreadwithgreatgustothismuch-quotedsentencefromchapter1:“Queersmustrespondtotheviolentforceofsuchconstantprovocationsnotonlybyinsistingonourequalrighttothesocialorder’sprerogatives,notonlybyavowingourcapacitytopromotethatorder’scoherenceandintegrity,butalsobysayingexplicitlywhatLawandthePopeandthewholeoftheSymbolicorderforwhichtheystandhearanywayineachandeveryexpressionormanifestationofqueersexuality:FuckthesocialorderandtheChildinwhosenamewe’recollectivelyterror-ized;fuckAnnie;fuckthewaiffromLes Mis;fuckthepoor,innocentkidontheNet;fuckLawswithbothcapi-tallsandwithsmall;fuckthewholenetworkofSymbolicrelationsandthefuturethatservesasitsprop”(29).

Works Cited

Adorno,Theodor.Negative Dialectics.Trans.E.B.Ash-ton.NewYork:Continuum,1994.

Edelman,Lee.No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive.Durham:DukeUP,2004.

Lacan,Jacques.The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII: The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959–1960.Ed.Jacques-AlainMiller.Trans.DennisPorter.NewYork:Nor-ton,1992.

SexPistols.“GodSavetheQueen.”Virgin,1977.

The Politics of Negativity in Recent Queer Theory

Thepanel“TheAntisocialThesisinQueerTheory,”atthe2005MLAconvention,wasintendedtoex-plorerecentworkinqueertheoryinfluencedbyLeoBersani’sdefinitionofsexasanticommunitar-ian,self-shattering,andanti-identitarian.Bersani’sbookHomosproposedacounterintuitivebutcru-cialshiftinthinkingawayfromprojectsofredemp-tion,reconstruction,restoration,andreclamationandtowardwhatcanonlybecalledanantisocial,negative,andantirelationaltheoryofsexuality.Thesexualinstinct,then,inthisformulation,nestlesupagainstthedeathdriveandconstitutesaforceopposingwhatBersaniterms“thetyrannyoftheself.”Ratherthanalifeforcethatconnectspleasuretolife,survival,andfuturity,sex,andparticularlyhomo-sexandreceptivesex,isadeathdrivethatundoestheself,releasestheselffromthedriveformastery,coherence,andresolution;“thevalueofsexualityitself,”writesBersani,“istodemeantheseriousnessofeffortstoredeemit”(“Rectum”222).Bersani’swork,whileitclearlysituatesitselfinre-

lationtoawell-definedcanonofgaymaleaestheticproductionbyGenet,Proust,andothers,hasalsobeenusefulforthetheorizationoffemmerecep-tivities(Cvetkovich)andbutchabjectionandles-bianloneliness(Love).AndthepoliticsofBersani’sproject,totheextentthatonecanidentifyapoliti-caltrajectoryinaradicallynonteleologicalproject,residesinitsbrutalrejectionofthecomfortingplatitudesthatweusetocushionourfallintomor-tality,incoherence,andnonmastery.

Myownrecentworkisprofoundlyinfluencedbythisparticularstrandofqueertheory,andinDude, Where’s My Theory?,anewbookon“thepoliticsofknowledgeinanageofstupidity,”Itrytocapitalizeoncounterintuitiveandpatentlyqueerformsofnegativeknowing.Inchaptersonstupid-ity,forgetting,failure,andinauthenticity,Itrytoexposethelogicofthebinaryformulationthatdamnscertainmodesofknowingtotherealmsofnegation,absence,andpassivityandelevatesoth-erstothestatusofcommonsense.Butonthepanelatthe2005MLAconvention,IwantedtoproduceaconversationaboutLeeEdelman’sbookNo Future,which,inmyopinion,makesperhapsthemostpowerfulandcontroversialrecentcontributiontoantisocialqueertheory.Edelman’spolemicde-scribestherejectionoffuturityasthemeaningofqueercritiqueandlinksqueertheorytothedeathdriveinordertoproposearelentlessformofnega-tivityinplaceoftheforward-looking,reproductive,andheteronormativepoliticsofhopethatanimatesalltoomanypoliticalprojects.Thequeersubject,heargues,hasbeenboundepistemologicallytonegativity,tononsense,toantiproduction,tounin-telligibility,and—insteadoffightingthischaracter-izationbydraggingqueernessintorecognition—heproposesthatweembracethenegativitythatwe,asqueersubjects,structurallyrepresent.Edelman’spolemicaboutfuturityascribestoqueernessthefunctionofthelimit;whiletheheteronormativepoliticalimaginationpropelsitselfforwardintimeandspacethroughtheindisputablypositiveimageofthechild,andwhileitprojectsitselfbackonthepastthroughthedignifiedimageoftheparent,thequeersubjectstandsbetweenheterosexualopti-mismanditsrealization.Atthispoliticalmoment,Edelman’sbookconstitutesacompellingargumentagainstaUnitedStatesimperialistprojectofhopeandoneofthemostpowerfulstatementsofqueer


studies’contributiontoananti-imperialist,queercounterhegemonicimaginary,yetItriedtoengagecriticallywithEdelman’sprojectinordertoargueforamoreexplicitlypoliticalframingoftheanti-socialproject.

WhileothercriticsmaywellopposeEdel-man’s book for what they see as an antichildstance,thiswasnotandisnotmyproblemwiththebook.Formethebookislimitedbyitsownnarrowvisionofanarchiveofnegativity.EdelmanframeshispolemicagainstfuturitywithepigraphsbyJacquesLacanandVirginiaWoolf,butheomitsthemoreobviousreferencethathistitleconjuresup,onethatechoesthroughrecentqueerantisocialaestheticproduction—“GodSavetheQueen”assungbytheSexPistols.WhiletheSexPistolsusedtherefrain“nofuture”torejectaformulaicunionofnation,monarchy,andfantasy,Edelmantendstocastmaterialpoliticalconcernsascrudeandpedestrian,asalreadyapartoftheconjuringoffuturitythathisprojectmustforeclose.

AttheMLAspecialsession,Iproposedtwoverydifferentexamplesofantisocialtheoristswhoarticulatethepoliticsofanexplicitlypoliticalnega-tivity:ValerieSolanasandJamaicaKincaid.Idon’thavespaceheretodetailpreciselytheformthattheirnegativitytakes,butJamaicaKincaid’snov-elsopposetheoptimismofthecolonialvisionwithaferociousvoiceofdespair,refusal,negation,andbleakpessimism,andValerieSolanasarticulatesadeeplyantisocialpoliticsthatcastspatriarchyasnotjustaformofmaledominationbutalsothefor-malproductionofsense,mastery,andmeaning.

Therealproblem,tomymind,withthisanti-socialturninqueertheoryhaslesstodowiththemeaningofnegativity—which,asIamarguing,canbefoundinanarrayofpoliticalprojects,fromanticolonialismtopunk—andmoretodowiththeexcessivelysmallarchivethatrepresentsqueernegativity.Thegaymalearchivecoincideswiththecanonicalarchiveandnarrowsitdowntoaselectgroupofantisocialqueeraesthetesandcampiconsandtexts.Itincludes,then,innoparticularorder,TennesseeWilliams,VirginiaWoolf,BetteMidler,AndyWarhol,HenryJames,JeanGenet,Broadwaymusicals,MarcelProust,AlfredHitchcock,OscarWilde,JackSmith,JudyGarland,andKikiandHerb,butitrarelymentionsallkindsofotheranti-socialwriters,artists,andtexts,likeValerieSola-

nas,JamaicaKincaid,PatriciaHighsmith,WallaceandGromit,JohnnyRotten,NicoleEiseman,Ei-leenMyles,JuneJordan,LindaBesemer,HotheadPaisan,Finding Nemo,LesbiansonEcstasy,Debo-rahCass,SpongeBob,ShulamithFirestone,MargaGomez,ToniMorrison,andPattiSmith.

Thegaymalearchive—becauseitislimitedtoashortlistoffavoredcanonicalwriters—isalsoboundbyaparticularrangeofaffectiveresponses.Andsofatigue,ennui,boredom,indifference,ironicdistancing,indirectness,archdismissal,insincerity,andcampmakeupwhatAnnCvet-kovichhascalled“anarchiveoffeelings”asso-ciatedwiththisformofantisocialtheory.Thiscanonoccludesanothersuiteofaffectivitiesasso-ciated,again,withanotherkindofpoliticsandadifferentformofnegativity.Inthisotherarchive,wecanidentify,forexample,rage,rudeness,an-ger,spite,impatience,intensity,mania,sincerity,earnestness,overinvestment,incivility,andbru-talhonesty.Thefirstarchiveisacamparchive,arepertoireofformalizedandoftenformulaicresponsestothebanalityofstraightcultureandtherepetitivenessandunimaginativenessofhet-eronormativity.Thesecondarchive,however,isfarmoreinkeepingwiththeundisciplinedkindsofresponsesthatBersaniatleastseemstoassoci-atewithsexandqueerculture,anditisherethatthepromiseofself-shattering, lossofmasteryandmeaning,unregulatedspeech,anddesireisunloosed.Dykeanger,anticolonialdespair,ra-cialrage,counterhegemonicviolence,punkpu-gilism—thesearethebleakandangryterritoriesoftheantisocialturn;thesearethejaggedzonesinwhichnotonlyself-shattering(theoppositeofnarcissism,inaway)butother-shatteringoccurs.Ifwewanttomaketheantisocialturninqueertheory,wemustbewillingtoturnawayfromthecomfortzoneofpoliteexchangetoembraceatrulypoliticalnegativity,onethatpromises,thistime,tofail,tomakeamess,tofuckshitup,tobeloud,unruly,impolite,tobreedresentment,tobashback,tospeakupandout,todisrupt,assas-sinate,shock,andannihilate,andtoabandontheneat,clever,chiasmic,punningemphasisonstyleandstylisticorderthatcharacterizesboththegaymalearchiveandthetheoreticalwritingaboutit.

Judith Halberstam UniversityofSouthernCalifornia


Works Cited

Bersani,Leo.Homos.Cambridge:HarvardUP,1996.———.“IstheRectumaGrave?”AIDS: Cultural Analysis /

Cultural Activism.Ed.DouglasCrimp.Cambridge:MITP,1988.197–222.

Cvetkovich,Ann.An Archive of Feelings: Trauma, Sexuality, and Lesbian Public Cultures.Durham:DukeUP,2003.


Love,Heather.Feeling Backward: Loss and the Politics of Queer History.Cambridge:HarvardUP,forthcoming.

Thinking beyond Antirelationality and Antiutopianism in Queer Critique

Shoutingdownutopiaisaneasymove.Itisper-hapseveneasierthansmearingpsychoanalyticordeconstructivereadingpracticeswiththechargeofnihilism.Theantiutopiancriticoftodayhasawell-wornwarchestofpoststructuralistpietiesatherorhisdisposaltoshutdownlinesofthoughtthatinhabittheconceptofutopia.Socialtheorythatinvokestheconceptofutopiahasalwaysbeenvulnerabletochargesofnaïveté,impracticality,orlackofrigor.AttheMLApanel“TheAntisocialThesisinQueerTheory,”oneofmycopanelistsre-spondedtomyargumentforreplacingafalteringantirelationalmodeofqueertheorywithaqueerutopianismthathighlightedarenewedinvestmentinsocialtheory(onethatcalledonnotonlyrela-tionalitybutalsofuturity)byexclaimingthattherewasnothingneworradicalaboututopia.TosomedegreethisisofcoursetrueinsofarasIamcallingonawell-establishedtraditionofcriticalidealism.Iamalsonotinterestedinanotionoftheradicalthatmerelyconnotesextremity,righteousness,oraffirmationofnewness.MyinvestmentinutopiaismyresponsetoqueerthinkingthatembracesapoliticsofthehereandnowunderlinedbywhatIconsidertobetoday’shamstrung,pragmaticgayagenda.Somewouldcallthiscrypto-pragmaticapproachtarryingwiththenegative.Iwouldnot.

LeoBersani’sHomos,whichfirsttheorizedantirelationality,inspiredantisocialqueertheories.Someofuscametoburyantirelationalqueertheo-riesatthe2005specialsessionontheantisocialthe-sis.Ihavelongbelievedthattheantirelationalturninqueerstudieswasprimarilyareactiontocriticalapproachesthatarguedfortherelationalandcontin-gentnatureofsexuality.Escapingordenouncing

relationalityfirstandforemostdistancesqueernessfromwhatsometheoristsseemtothinkofascontam-inationbyrace,gender,orotherparticularitiesthattaintthepurityofsexualityasasingulartropeofdifference.Inotherwords,Ihavebeenoftheopinionthatantirelationalapproachestoqueertheorywerewishfulthinking,investmentsindeferringvariousdreamsofdifference.Ithasbeencleartomanyofus,forquiteawhilenow,thattheantirelationalinqueerstudieswasthegaywhiteman’slaststand.1

Ihavechosentocounterpolemicsthatargueforantirelationalitybyinsistingontheessentialneedforanunderstandingofqueernessascollec-tivity.Atthe2005MLApanel,inrecentessays,andinmyforthcomingbookCruising Utopia,Irespondtotheassertionthatthereisnofutureforthequeerbyarguingthatqueernessisprimarilyaboutfuturity.Queernessisalwaysonthehori-zon.Indeed,forqueernesstohaveanyvaluewhat-soever,itmustbeconsideredvisibleonlyonthehorizon.MyargumentisthereforeinterestedincritiquingtheontologicalcertitudethatIunder-standtoaccompanythepoliticsofpresentistandpragmaticcontemporarygayidentity.Thiscerti-tudeisoftenrepresentedthroughanarrationofdisappearanceandnegativitythatboilsdowntoanothergameoffort-da.

Myconferencepaperandthe forthcomingbookitisculledfromhavefoundmuchpropul-sionintheworkofErnstBlochandotherMarxistthinkerswhodidnotdismissutopia.Blochfoundstridentgroundsforacritiqueofatotalizingandnaturalizingideaofthepresentinhisconceptoftheno-longer-conscious.Aturntotheno-longer-consciousenabledacriticalhermeneuticsattunedtocomprehendingthenotyethere.Thistemporalcalculusdeployedthepastandthefutureasarma-mentstocombatthedevastatinglogicofthehereandnow,inwhichnothingexistsoutsidethecurrentmomentandwhichnaturalizesculturallogicslikecapitalismandheteronormativity.Concomitantly,Blochhasalsosharpenedourcriticalimagination’semphasisonwhathefamouslycalled“aprincipleofhope.”Hopeisaneasytargetforantiutopians.Butwhileantiutopiansmightunderstandthemselvesascriticalintherejectionofhope,theywould,intherushtodenounceit,missthepointthathopeisspawnedofacriticalinvestmentinutopiathatisnothinglikenaivebut,instead,profoundlyresistant


tothestultifyingtemporallogicofabroken-downpresent.MyturntoBloch,hope,andutopiachal-lengestheoreticalinsightsthathavebeenstuntedbythelullofpresentnessandbyvariousromancesofnegativityandthathavethusbecomeroutineandre-soundinglyanticritical.ThisantiutopiantheoreticalfalteringiswhatIreferredtoearlier,almostinjest,aspoststructuralistpieties.Ihavelearnedquiteabitfromcriticalpracticescommonlydescribedaspost-structuralistandhavenowishtodenouncethem.ThecorrectiveIwanttomakebyturningtoutopiaisattunedtoEveKosofskySedgwick’scritiqueofthewayinwhichparanoidreadingpracticeshavebe-comesonearlyautomaticinqueerstudiesthattheyhave,inmanyways,ceasedtobecritical.Inqueerstudies,antiutopianism,moreoftenthannotinter-twinedwithantirelationality,hasledmanyscholarstoanimpassewhereintheycannotseefuturityforthelifeofthem.UtopianreadingsarealignedwithwhatSedgwickwouldcallreparativehermeneutics.

ThequeerutopianismIamarguingforisakindofanti-antiutopianism,toborrowaphrasefromFredricJameson.Anti-antiutopianismisnotaboutamerelyaffirmativeorpositiveinvestmentinutopia.Gayandlesbianstudiescantooeas-ilysnapintothebasicallyreactionarypostureofdenouncingacriticalimaginationthatdoesnotshort-sightedlydenyanythingbutthehereandnow.TheprojectofthinkingbeyondthemomentandagainststatichistoricismsresonateswithJu-dithHalberstam’sworkonqueertemporality’srelationtospatiality,CarlaFreccero’snotionoffantasmatichistoriography,ElizabethFreeman’stheoryoftemporaldrag,CarolynDinshaw’sap-proachto“touchingthepast,”andJillDolan’sre-centbookonutopianperformance.IwouldalsoalignitwithLisaDuggan’scritiqueofneoliberalhomonormativity.Alongthoselines,whilethiswritingprojectdoesnotalwaysexplicitlyconcernrace,itsharesmanypoliticalurgencieswithavi-brantlistofscholarsworkingontheparticulari-tiesofqueersofcolorandtheirpolitics.ManyoftheseauthorsfilloutthetableofcontentsforthespecialissueofSocial Text,What’s Queer about Queer Studies Now?,thatIrecentlycoeditedwithJudithHalberstamandDavidEng.Ultimately,mytheoryofqueerfuturityattendstothepastforthepurposeofcritiquingapresent.Thisprojectdependsoncriticalpracticesthatstaveoffthe

failuresofimaginationinqueercritiquethatIun-derstandasantirelationalityandantiutopianism.

José Esteban Muñoz NewYorkUniversity

Note

1.Idonotmeanallgaywhitemeninqueerstudies.Moreprecisely,Iamreferringtogaywhitemalescholarswhoimaginesexualityasadiscretecategorythatcanbeabstractedandisolatedfromotherantagonismsinthesocial,whichincluderaceandgender.

Work Cited

Bloch,Ernst.The Principle of Hope.Trans.NevillePlaice,StephenPlaice,andPaulKnight.3vols.Cambridge:MITP,1996.

Sedgwick,EveKosofsky.Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity.Durham:DukeUP,2003.

The Antisocial Homosexual

Everyoneknowsthathomosexualsthrowfabulousparties.Farfromantisocial,weareinfactadeptatpracticingsociabilityinitsmyriadforms.Theburdenof“theantisocialthesisinqueertheory,”whichLeoBersaniformulatedmostdecisivelyinHomos,isnotthatlesbiansandgaymenareun-sociablebutthatsomeaspectofhomosexualitythreatensthesocialandthatitmightbestrategicpoliticallytoexploitthatthreat.Homosexualitycanbeviewedasthreateningbecause,insofaraswefailtoreproducethefamilyinarecognizableform,queersfailtoreproducethesocial.

Inthisrespect,theantisocialthesisoriginatesnotinqueertheorybutinright-wingfantasiesabouthow“thehomosexualagenda”underminestheso-cialfabric.Certainqueertheoristshavesuggestedthatratherthancritiquesuchreactionaryfantasiesanddistanceourselvesfromthem,wemightex-pedientlyembracethem,takethemon.In“IstheRectumaGrave?,”hisprecursortoHomos,Bersanicontendedthat“itisperhapsnecessarytoacceptthepainofembracing,atleastprovisionally,ahomo-phobicrepresentationofhomosexuality”(209).

This line of thinking has been pursuedbyLeeEdelmaninhisrecentbookNo Future,whichfocusedmuchoftheMLApanel’sdebateanddisagreement. Insteadofarguingagainst


theviciouslyhomophobicrepresentationofho-mosexualityassterile,unproductive,antifam-ily,anddeath-driven,Edelmaninsiststhat“weshouldlistento,andevenperhapsbeinstructedby,thereadingsofqueersexualitiesproducedbytheforcesofreaction”(16).Ifthereisagermoftruthinhomophobicstereotypesofqueernessasdestructive,thenwemightheroicallyidentifywiththosenegativestereotypesinordertoshort-circuitthesocialinitspresentform.

Embracing thehomophobicalignmentofqueernesswiththedeathdrive,Edelmanwantstoharnessthedrive’snegativitytohisassaulton“re-productivefuturism.”Byreproductive futurismhemeansthedominantideologyofthesocial,whichseesitintermsofafuturerequiringnotonlyre-productionbutalsoprotectionandthatthereforerepresentsfuturityintheimageoftheinnocentchild.YetFreud’stheoryofinfantilesexuality,withitsaccountofanoriginalpredispositiontopoly-morphousperversion,longagoshatteredtheillu-sionofchildhoodinnocence.Wecannotprotectkidsfromperverts,becausewecannoteffectivelyinsulateanychildfromhim-orherself.AsFreudrepeatedlydiscovered,sexualperversioncomesfrominsidethefamilyhome,notfromoutsideit.

However,oncethesocialisdefinedintermsofafuturerepresentedbythechild,thenqueer-ness(orperverse,nonreproductivesexuality)nec-essarilynegatesthatfuturebyfissuringitfromwithin—justas,inLacanianterms,therealfrac-turesthesymbolicfromwithin.Accordingtothisargument,queernessisstructurallyantisocial,notempiricallyso.Byconstruingthesociopoliticalorderprimarilyinimaginaryandsymbolicterms,whilesimultaneouslyinvokingthequeerasrealtounderminethatorder,Edelman’saccountofferstoomonochromaticavisionofthesymbolic;itfur-nishestoonarrowaconceptionofthesocial;anditpaintsanunimaginativepictureofthefuture.

MycolleaguesontheMLApanelelaboratedsimilarcriticismsofEdelman’sproject.Highlight-ingthepredictabilityofhisarchive,JudithHalber-stamanatomizedamoreexpansive,messiervisionofthesocialthatembracesnegativitywithoutfore-closingfuturity.InhisfascinatingdiscussionoftheNewYorkSchoolpoets,JoséMuñozoutlinedvari-ouspossibilitiesofqueerfuturityintermsofuto-piaandpotentiality.Duringthediscussionperiod,

IpointedtoMichaelSnediker’simportantworkonqueeroptimismasanotherwayofthinkingaboutfuturitybeyondrecentqueertheoreticalemphasesonnegativity,melancholia,andthedeathdrive.

ReachingbeyondLacanianpsychoanalyticorthodoxy,mypaperfocusedaboveallonwhatDeleuzecalls“becoming”—aceaselessmovementofbeingthatisnotcoordinatedbyteleologyandthatneverresultsinanythingresemblinganiden-tity.Thesignificanceofthisperspectiveonfutu-ritystemsfromthefactthattheantisocialthesisproperlybeginswithneitherEdelmannorBersanibutratherwithGuyHocquenghem—specifically,withhisDeleuzianreadingofFreudinHomosexual Desire(1972).Hocquenghemshedslightontheantisocialthesisbyexplaining,“Homosexualde-sireisneitheronthesideofdeathnoronthesideoflife;itisthekillerofcivilizedegos”(150).Ho-mosexualdesireachievesthateffectbyshatteringtheimaginaryidentitiesthroughwhichwerecog-nizeourselvesandothers.WhatIfindcrucialhereisthattheshatteringofthecivilizedegobetokensnottheendofsocialitybutratheritsinception.

ThispointhasbeenmissedbymanyofBer-sani’sreaderstoo.Themovementofcomingto-getheronlytobeplungedintoanexperienceofthenonrelationalrepresentsbutthefirststepinBersani’saccountofrelationality.Thesecond,cor-relativestepistotracenewformsofsociability,newwaysofbeingtogether,thatarenotgroundedinimaginaryidentityorthestruggleforintersubjec-tiverecognition.Inmyview,disruptingegoidentitythrough“self-shattering”givesaccesstotheproduc-tivityoftheprimaryprocess,whichisprofoundlyconnective.Hocquenghem,followingDeleuzeandGuattari,speaksofbodies“pluggingin,”whereastodaywemightspeakof“hookingup”—avisceraldramatizationofthepromiscuoussociabilityofun-consciousdesirewhenunconstrainedbyOedipus.

ThesymboliclawofreproductivefuturismisnotasencompassingordeterminativeasLacani-anslikeEdelmanseemtothink.Thetheoryoftheunconsciousisastoryabouttheunderdetermina-tion,aswellastheoverdetermination,ofsubjectiv-ity.Nothingismorepromiscuouslysociable,moreintentonhookingup,thanthatpartofourbeingseparatefromselfhood.Mypaperconcludedbyar-guingthatqueertheoryandpoliticsneedavigor-ouslyarguedantisocialthesis,inordertograsphow


Are You Postcolonial? To the Teachers of Slavic and Eastern European Literatures

YouhaveinvolvedyourselvesintherethinkingofSovietstudiesasnotonlypost-Sovietstudiesbutalsopostcolonialstudies.Thefirstwaveofpost-colonialstudieswasbasedontheBritishempire.Wehavealottolearnasthatmodeltravelsoutofitsfirstcontainedsphereintotheaftermathofoldmulticulturalempires.Doespostcolonialismleadtonationalism?Ispostcolonialismappropriatedbythemetropolitandiaspora?Is“scientificso-cialism”comparableto“civilizingmission”?Isthe“OtherEurope”movement—inPoland,Hungary,Bohemia,theBalkans,andelsewhere—manage-ablewithinaspecificallypostcolonialframework?Mustthepost-SovietworldbethoughtofasanewEurasiainorderforthepostcolonialviewpointtostick,asMarkvonHagenhassuggested?Thear-gumentaboutwomenasthesurrogateproletariatincentralAsiatraveledoutofSovietstudies.Howwillthatfigure?

Thisrethinkingimpliesthatthemosteman-cipatoryvisionoftheEnlightenmentcouldnotwithstandtheweightoftheobjectiveandsubjec-tivehistoryofolder,precapitalistempires.Ourcurrentandso-calledemancipatoryprogramsdonotengagewiththis.Theremightbesomeuse,then,inrethinkingpostcolonialismforthisnewtask.Butitmustunmooritselffromitsprovisional

beginningsinmonopolycapitalistormercantilecolonialismsandtransformitselfintheprocess.Everypostcolonialityissituated,andthereforedifferent.A Critique of Postcolonial ReasonwasprovokedbyKant’suseofthewesternAustralianAborigine.Howwillthistraveltothe“European”imaginationof“theOtherEurope”today?Howwillyoudisplaceourmodernnotionsofhybriddiasporaswhenyouthinkoftherestlessnessof,say,Armenia?

InresponsetostudentsintheSlavicdepart-mentatColumbiaUniversity,Iwroteasfollows:

Whenanaliennation-stateestablishesit-selfasruler,impressingitsownlawsandsys-temsofeducationandrearrangingthemodeofproductionforitsowneconomicbenefit,“colonizer”and“colonized”canbeused.Theconsequencesofapplyingthemtoawidear-rayofpoliticalandgeographicentitieswouldbedireifcolonialismhadonlyonemodel.Ontheotherhand,ifwenoticehowdifferentkindsofadventuresandprojectsturnintosomethingthatfitsthebare-bonesdescrip-tiongivenabove,wewillhaveapowerfulanalysisofthepoliticsofprogressivism,ofonesortoranother.Howdopoliticalphilos-ophiesofsocialjusticerelatetotheoverdeter-minationsofpracticalpolitics?Thisvenerablequestionreceivesinterestinganswersifwe

beyondthenormativecoordinatesofselfhoodliesanorgyofconnectionthatnoregimecanregulate.

Tim Dean UniversityatBuffalo

Works Cited

Bersani,Leo.Homos.Cambridge:HarvardUP,1995.

———.“IstheRectumaGrave?”AIDS: Cultural Analysis / Cultural Activism.Ed.DouglasCrimp.Cambridge:MITP,1988.197–222.


Hocquenghem,Guy.Homosexual Desire.Trans.DaniellaDangoor.Durham:DukeUP,1993.

Snediker,Michael.Queer Optimism.Minneapolis:UofMinnesotaP,forthcoming.

Are�We�Postcolonial?�Post-Soviet�SpaceAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanAssociationofTeachersofSlavicandEastEuropeanLanguages29December2005,Washington,DC


considertheirreducibilityofthecolonialinasituation-specificandflexibleway.Addition-ally,ifwecastourglanceattheplace(s)colo-nized(accordingtotherarefiedformula),weencountergreatheterogeneity.Thisprovidesusanopportunitytostudythepoliticsofcul-turalandepistemictransformation.

Theproblemwithapplyingthesetermstotheareayoucoverwouldbemerelytofollowthethreemostpowerfulmodelsofcolonialdiscoursetheorycurrentlyavailable,belong-ingtotheMiddleEast,SouthAsia,andLatinAmerica.Theserefertocolonialadventuresundertakenbysinglenationsasexplorationandconquestnourishedmercantilecapital-ism—followedbytheexpandingmarketneedsofindustrialcapital.Yourareadisplacedthepolitical linesofoldmultiethnicimperialformations,Ottoman,Hapsburg,Russian.Theeasternedgepushesintoterrainthatisevenfurtherfromthesingle-nationmodel.Anothergreatdifferenceisthepresenceofanarticulatedideal—versionsof“scientificsocialism”—whichgaveaseeminglygreaterspecificitytotheepistemicchange.Thesingle-nationmodelwasaccompaniedby“civilizingmissions”thatwererelativelyautonomousfrompoliticalandeconomicstructures.

Historically,ithasalwaysbeenthepow-erfulwhohavespokenorbeenspokenof.Idon’tknowenoughabouttheareaunderstudytogointodetailhere,but,asafeministandasubalternist,Iamusedtolookingattheporesofelitetextstoteaseoutexcludeditin-eraries.Aswemoveeastward,thenatureofthetextschanges.Heremydisciplinarycom-mitmentskickin.Iwantustousetheliteraryimaginationtoreadsagasandchronicles.IspokewithwomenfrominnerAsiatenyearsagoandwithfolksfromformerSovietArme-niamorerecently.Theyspokeofthedifficultyofcommunicationwiththeirmothers—and,forsure,theirgrandmothers—becauseRus-siangetsintheway.Thefracturingofgenderis somewhatdifferent fromthenational-istinsistenceonnative-languagepoliticsinthe“new”nationsborderingontheRussianFederation.Howeveroneapproachesthis,itseemstomeafertilefieldforreallanguage-

basedcomparativeliterature,muchmorelikeculturalstudiesthanliketheoldermodelofeasternEuropeancomplit—wherethedis-ciplinebegan.Colonialdiscourseandpost-colonial studieshavenotbeengoodwithlanguages.Theareasyoustudycanturnthisaround.Yourfieldcanofferspectacularop-portunitiesforhistorytojoinhandswithlit-erarycriticisminsearchoftheethicalasitinterruptstheepistemological.

Postcolonialtheorywillengageanalyticrepresentationsofpositionsotherthanthecolonizers’(oldandnew)inthemodeloftheorganicintellectual(“permanentpersuaders”—Gramsci).Butitisthetheorythatmustbemadetoengagewiththis,notourselvesasacademicnarcissists.Thegenderedapproachisparticularlyeffectiveinpostcolonialworkbecauseitoftenseekstoexposethepatriar-chalcollaborationbetweencolonizerandcolonized.Feminismandpostcolonialthe-oryhaveacertainconcernforsocialjustice.Iwouldliketothinkthatthisisthecaseforallhumanitiesandsocialsciencework,per-hapsforallwork.Buttoonarrowadefinitionofpoliticalcommitmentleadstoworkwiththesamedulllitanyofforegoneconclusions.Ihavealwaysfoundsuch“research”tedious.Thesearewarningsfromabattle-scarredvet-eranontheeveofyournewdeparture.

Theywerestudents.Youarecolleagues.Iwillletyouaddthepinchofsalt.

Gayatri Chakravorty spivak ColumbiaUniversity

The Anti-imperialist Empire and After: In Dialogue with Gayatri Spivak’s “Are You Postcolonial?”

DebateswithinSlavicstudiesareincreasinglyfu-eledbythisquestion:arewenowalsopostcolo-nial—“we”beingsomeunstablecombinationofpostsocialistcitizenry,theirdiasporas,andtheresearchcommunitiesthatstudythem.Howisitbesttogetatthisquestion?CanwepointtoSovietcolonizerswhohavewithdrawn—eitherphysi-callyorintermsofasystemicfailureofpowerand


knowledge—leavingbehindsomedistinctgrouptoengageintheculturalreclamationprojectofnationbuilding(linguistic,educational,andlegalreforms;reconstructedinstitutionsofthemediaandtheelectoralprocess;theemergenceofau-tonomouscivicassociations)?Areasonedanswer,whateveritis,willrespondtothislineofquestion-ing.Letusbracketcultureforthemomentandad-dressthequestioningeographicterms,fromtheoutside—thatistosay,externalempire—in.

IfwearespeakingofCentralEurope, thecountriesthat—somewouldargue—hadastatusanalogousincertainrespectstothatofBritain’swhitecolonies,theanswerinitially,ofcourse,isyes,wearepostcolonial.Thataffirmativeistem-pered,however,byanawarenessthat“postcolo-nial”mightbeanunlikelychoiceby,forexample,mostCzechcitizens.Firstofall,theirpost-Sovietreclamationissurelyaimedasmuchatareinte-grationintopost–coldwarEuropeasitistowardthebuildingofthenation-state.Whetherthisre-EuropeanizationisinfactintegrationintoanemergentempireoftheEuropeanUnionIwillleaveunaddressed.1Second,adescriptormorefamiliarthanSoviet colonialism—giventhegeo-graphic,historical,andconceptualproximitytoNazism—hasbeenSoviet occupation.Theinsis-tenceonthisterm—indeed,itsnaturalization—raisesaninterestingquestion.IsitcorrecttosaythattheCzechs,forexample,wereoccupiedbuttheUzbekscolonized?Ifso,thenfortheCzechswasittheperiod’sbrevity,theabsenceofatsar-istlegacy,theirrelativetechnologicalparitywiththeSovietUnion,theirmasteryofthediscourseofoccupation,orourunacknowledgedracializa-tionoflanguagethatdrivesthisdistinction?In-deed,theabsencefrom1946to1967ofanalien,occupyingmilitaryorgovernanceonCzechsoilfurtherproblematizesthevocabulary.Thesehabitsofthought—inthenorthwestsectoroftheSovietempire,“occupation”;initssoutheastsector,“co-lonialism”—suggestthattheSovietcase(Eurasia,afterall)isanimportantcrossroadsforpostcolo-nialistdebates,asitewherefamiliartermsencoun-tereachotheranew.Isitworthasking,Howwhitemustonebetobeoccupied?And,conversely,doesthevocabularyofpostcolonialistdebatesoriental-izethosewhomitsetsouttoemancipateconceptu-allyfromcoldwarcategoriesofSovietoccupation?

Interms,therefore,ofthequestionasitisposed—Arewepostcolonial?—weareleftasyetwithanaf-firmative,butstilldeeplyunsatisfying,answer.

IfwehaveinmindtheinternalSovietem-pire—theformerfifteenrepublics—thentheini-tialanswer,again,isyes.But,ofcourse,assoonasthingsbegintoseemsimple,theempire’sradicalinternaldiversitymakesthismonosyllabicanswerproblematic,andnotonlyforthereasonscitedabove.Howproductiveisaconsistentvocabularyforaradicallyinconsistentexpansionism?Thislastquestionconcernsnotmerelythediversityofcolo-nizedterritorybutalsotheprofoundlydifferentmodesofmetropolitanexpansion:if,forexample,intheBalticsRusso-Sovietappropriationofanal-readyexistingGermaneliteprovidedone—insomerespects,anglophile—model,thenintheFarEastRusso-Sovietmissionaryandmercantileexpan-sionismprovidedanother,moreSpanish,model,whichproducedverydifferentculturalsymptoms.Ourcolleaguesinotherdisciplineshavedebatedthisheterogeneityatlength,whilethehumanitieshavebeenslowertoaddresstheseissues.2

IfweturnourattentiontotheRussianFed-erationtoday,acuriousparadoxobtains,sincethefederation’sinternalrelationswithChechnya,Bashkortostan,andelsewhereshowlittletraceofdecolonization;infact,thehistoricalcontradic-tionsofitsdisciplinarysystemsfindthemselvesincrisisbetweenthedeadempireandthenewlyemer-gentone.OnlythegreatestoptimistwouldclaimthatRussia’scivilassociations—independentelec-tionmonitoring,themedia,veterans’associations,environmentalandpublic-healthadvocacygroups,policyresearchinstitutes,andsoforth—havecon-tinuedtodevelop.Instead(inaclumsyparaphraseofMonkFilofei),3adynasticempirefell,asocialistonefollowed,andathirdisnowconsolidatingitsinstitutionsalongfamiliartrajectories.Thecol-lapseoftheSovietUnion—internallyimperialistbut(initsdeclaredanimositytoFirstWorldpre-dation)externallyanti-imperialist—resolvedonecorecontradiction,butsubstitutedanother:Rus-sia,recoveringgraduallyfromitspostimperialfatigue,remains(thoughreconfigured)anempirenevertheless.Doesthatrepetition,likeastubbornhabitrenouncedagainandagain,nullifychange?AnadequateaccountofthecurrentconjuncturemustaddressthesimultaneityofSovietpostcolo-


nialityandRussiancolonialism,theircontradic-tionsandyettheirintensecompatibilities.

Adiscussionofpost-Sovietculturemustpro-ceedwithintheseparameters,takingintoaccountthedifferencesbetweenthesymptomsofthecon-tiguousempireandthoseofthemorefamiliartha-lassocraticmodelofBritishpostcoloniality.Russiadiffersinitsmarkersofmodernity;therelativeim-poverishmentofitscenterincontrasttoitsWesternborders;itsconstructionsofethnicity,nationality,andrace;itsstate-driven,highlycentralizedstruc-ture;and—asGeoffreyHoskinghaseloquentlyargued—therelativeweaknessofitsownnationalformations.Yettheseconditionsprovideonlythemerestguidetothecomplextasksofculturalanal-ysis,forRussiancontiguityproducesnotculturalhomologybutrather,attimes,itsopposite:alibidi-nalengagement,undercertainconditions,withthegreatoverseasempire,asissurelysuggested,forexample,inAivazovsky’sevocativeseascapes.Inasimilarlycontradictoryfashion,theculturaltropesoflandscapeincinema,literature,oilpainting,andmasssong—figuring,ontheonehand,Russia’s“unencompassibility”(необъятность)and,ontheother,theneedforconstantvigilanceatthebor-ders—shareacommonanxietyabouttheouterreachesofRussia’sexpandingdrive,aresponseto its shiftingboundariesasencodedculturalwishandfear.Wemustreadthesemarksagainstthegrainintwodistinctfashions:first,againstapostcolonialismthatfitsuneasilywithoursubjectofstudyand,second,againstourowndiscipline,whichhasunderstoodthesedebatesasoccurringbetweentheFirstandThirdWorlds,withlittleresonanceforRussia.Thelargestcountryintheworld,stillverymuchinpossessionofitsimperialholdings,RussiaremainsachallengetoscholarsoftheFirstandThirdWorldswhowouldseemoder-nityasinextricablyintertwinedwithcapitalism,thenation-state,andliberaldemocracy.

Nancy Condee UniversityofPittsburgh,Pittsburgh

Notes

1.Habermas’swritingsonthepostnationalconstella-tionandcoordinationofsovereigndiscoursesmightinvitesuchapolemicalresponsefromthosewhohaveweatheredthetwentieth-century“friendshipofpeoples,”withallitsfederalistclaims.HereworkbyTerryMartinandRonald

SunyhasbeenatthecenterofthedebatesonthelegacyofAustro-HungaryandtheemergenceofwhatMartinhasdubbedtheSovietUnion’s“affirmative-actionempire.”

2.IrefertoworkbyMarkBeissinger,GeoffreyHos-king,DominicLieven,TerryMartin,IlyaPrizel,RonaldSuny,andMarkvonHagen,amongothers.

3.Filofei(Philotheus),anearly-sixteenth-centuryhegumenofPskov’sEleazarovMonastery,issaidtohavewrittenalettercontainingtheadmonitionthatafterthefallofRomeandConstantinople,Muscovyhadinheritedtheburdenofpreservingthetruefaith:“TwoRomeshavefallen.TheThirdstands.Afourththereshallnotbe”(qtd.inMalinin,app.54–55).

Work Cited

Malinin,VasiliiN.Starets Eleazarova Monastyria Filofei i ego poslanie.Kiev:Tip.Kievo-PecherskoiUspenskoiLavry,1901.

Between 1917 and 1947: Postcoloniality and Russia-Eurasia

Hasthepostcolonialbecomeanewuniversal,onecapableofsubsumingunderoneconceptualrubricsuchverydifferenthistoricalexperiencesastheemergenceofNewWorldstatesoutofthelegacyofwhite-settlercolonialism,thedecolonizationsofAfricaandAsia,andthemuchmorerecentdis-integrationoftheSovietbloc?Ifso,whatisgainedandwhatislostbysuchawayofviewinghistory?

Postcolonialtheoryhasaspecificpoliticalhis-toryandintellectualgenealogythataredistinct,butnotentirelydivorced,fromSoviethistory.Postcolonialtheorybecamepossiblewiththepost-wardecolonizationsofAfricaandAsiaandtherelatedascendancyofvariousnationalintelligent-sias.Thesuccessofsecularnationalismenabledtheseintelligentsiastoreexaminetherecentpast,justasthesubsequentcrisisofsecularnationalismenabledthemtocritiquethefailuresofthepost-colonialstateanditscomplicitieswitholderandnewerimperialisms.Theresultingproliferationofrevisionisthistoriographyandtheoreticalcritiquewasfurtherempoweredbytheincreasinglytrans-nationallocationofitspractitioners,manifestedmostvisiblybytheemergenceofpostcolonialdi-asporasactiveintheAmericanacademyandbyrelatedshiftsinstudentdemographics.

AlthoughNasser,Sukarno,andNehruclearlylookedinparttotheSovietstateforinspiration,the twentieth-centuryencounterbetweenthe


SecondandThirdWorldscannolongerbereadasoneofinspiredcontinuity.Thegapbetweenthetwoemblematicdates1917,theyearoftheRussianRevolution,and1947,theyearofIndianindependence,seemsfargreatertodaythandur-ingtheheydayofnonalignment,formulatedattheBandungConferenceof1955.TakingplacesomethirtyyearsbeforetheSouthAsianandAf-ricandecolonizations,thefirstdecolonizationoftheRussianempirewasproclaimedinthenameofarevolutionarysocialismthatwouldcruciallyequivocateonwhatwascalledthenationalques-tion.TheSovietUnionwasexpresslyinternation-alistyetzealouslyterritorialandexpansionist,denyingtheautonomyofitsconstitutivepeopleswhileretainingafederalstructurethatwouldnonethelesspermitanelaboratediscourseoflo-calspecificity.Thisequivocationledtothepara-doxicalemergenceofwhatNancyCondeerecentlycalledananti-imperialistempire.IftheSovietUnionwasanempire,itwasonethatcombinedanexceptionallyviolentandcoercivecentralismwithapaternalisticinternationalismwhoserelationtotheperipheriesoftheUSSRwasbynomeanspurelyexploitative.Thesubsidizingofrepublicaneconomies,theindigenizingofregionalpartystructures,andthefosteringofnationalculturesfromtheUzbektotheArmenianwerepursuedintandemwiththeostensiblyhomogenizingvisionof“Sovietman.”Itwassurelythesustained,of-ficialSovietcultivationofnationalrepublicanelites,asmuchastheeffortsoflocalnationalisms,thatpermittedtherapidemergenceofaplethoraofpost-Sovietnation-states.

ThedistinctnessofSovietexperiencefindsaninvertedcorollaryintheevolutionofRussianstudiesintheUnitedStates.Achildofthecoldwar,Russianstudiescombinedhistoricalinvesti-gationsthatlargelyreproducedacentralistormet-ropolitanvisionofEurasianhistorywithastudyofliteraturethatfashionedacanonoutoftheRus-siannineteenth-centuryclassics,themodernists,andthepostwardissidents.TheinfluxofRussianémigrésdidlittletoupsettheseassumptions,sinceoneoftheirprimaryintellectualandexistentialreflexeswastocounterposepoliticsandculture.TheunderrepresentationofotherSovietethnici-tiesinAmericanuniversitiesandinAmericaatlarge,nottomentiontheirregionalisolationfrom

globalintellectualdebates,isprobablyasmuchre-sponsiblefortheunderdevelopmentofEurasianpostcolonialstudiesasthepurelymethodologicalquestionofpostcolonialism’sapplicabilitytothepost-Sovietregion.

Sowheredoesthequestionstandtoday,inourfield?

InRussianliterarystudies,asmallbodyofworksexaminesthecorrelationofliteratureandempire.Iwillconfinemyselftonotingtwoseri-ouslimitationsoftheseworks.First,theytendtoreadEdwardSaid’sOrientalismasasynecdocheforpostcolonialcriticismasawhole,inordertoassertitsqualifiedapplicabilitytoRussianstudiesandtomakeacaseforRussia’squasi-European,quasi-Asiaticparticularism.Thisiscombinedwithstrategiesofreadingthatlargelyfocusonmimetic-representationalcategoriesattheex-penseofformalorrhetoricalmodes.Allofthisignoresamuchlargerbodyofliterarycriticismandhistoriography(e.g.,fromSouthAsiaorLatinAmerica)whosemeditationsonthedistortionsormutationsproducedbytheimportationofEuro-centricmodernizinganddevelopmentalistmodelstothenon-WestmightthrowausefullightontheRussian-Eurasianregion.Moreseriousstillhasbeenourneglectofthenon-RussianliteraryandintellectualtraditionsoftheformerSovietUnion.WeremaintrappedinthePetrineparadigmofRussia’seternallyanxiousopeningtotheWest;wherewelooktotheEast,weremaincontentwithRussianrepresentationsofit.

ThepostcolonialquestionhascertainlybeenbetterarticulatedinrelatedfieldssuchasRus-sianhistoryandpost-Sovietanthropology.Inareviewessay–cum-manifestoonthesedevelop-ments,MarkvonHagenrecentlyclaimedtheterm“Eurasia”asan“anti-paradigmforthepost-Sovietera”that“signalsadecenteringofhistoricalnar-rativesfromthepowerfulperspectivesofthefor-mercapitals,whetherimperialSt.Petersburgortsarist-SovietMoscow”(par.2).VonHagentakesstrategicadvantageofthetoponymiccrisiscausedbythecollapseoftheSovietUnionandclaimsforacounterhegemonicintellectualinitiativeaterm—Eurasia—thathasinfacthadarelativelymuddyintellectualhistory.Farmorethanothertoponyms(suchasthosefornationsandcontinents),Eurasiaremainstothisdayanindeterminatecategorywith


anunevenhistoryofdiscursiveelaboration,andithadaweakinstitutionallegitimacyuntilitsrecent,rapidadoptionbyareastudiesinstitutesandcen-tersintheUnitedStates.ConceivedoforiginallyintheWesttodescribethelandmassofEuropeandAsiacombined,thetermhasbeenusedinRussiaaspartofattemptstorethinktherelationbetweentheEuropeanandAsiaticregionsoftheRussianempire,withafocusonthecentralAsiansteppeasEurasia’snewlydesignatedcore.Thisconceptualhistoryhasbeenmarkedbyarichparadox:whileservingtohighlighttheethnicallydiversenatureoftheformerSovietUnion,tothepointofdisplac-ingtheEurocentrismofreceivedaccountsoftheregion,thetermEurasiahasalsobeenmarkedbyastrongtotalizingimpulse,adesireforspatialunityandforaprincipletoguaranteethisunity.Tobesure,vonHagenexplicitlyrepudiatesthe“faith[ofclassicalEurasianistssuchasTrubetzkoy]intheRussianEmpire’sself-sufficiency,its‘exceptionalpath,’andtheirunderstandingofEurasiaasaclosedsystemofinterrelationships”(26).

VonHagennecessarilylimitshimselftotheworkofWesternandRussianprofessionalhisto-riansofEurasiawhohavebeenenrichedbytheinsightsofnewermethodologies.ThisframeworkneglectsonevitalelementthatcouldbecomethelegitimateobjectofRussian-Eurasian literarystudies:theintellectualorcreativeinterventionsofwriters,poets,philologists,andpoliticalactivistsoftheEurasianperipheries,whoseworkconstitutesasetofalternativetrajectoriesthatseldom,ifever,coincidedcompletelywiththedirectivesemanatingfromMoscow.Theculturalproductionofthere-formistaswellasrevolutionarynationalintelligent-siasofcentralAsiaandtheCaucasusduringthelatetsaristandearlySovietperiodsisimmenselyrich,rangingfromtheaestheticvangardismoftheGeorgianmoderniststothenationalcommunismoftheTatarSultanGaliev,whosecritiqueofLenin-istinternationalismcastsamorecontradictorylightonCominterndebatesonthenationalityquestion.ThisvariedbodyofworkmightallowusspatiallytoreconfiguretheconvergencebetweenpoliticsandaestheticsthatNeilLarsenhassuggestivelyfoundinLenin’scritiqueofimperialismandthesynchro-nousemergenceoftheartisticavant-gardeasanew“internationaleofform.”Finally,letusnotforgetthatthemostimaginativecritiqueofRussocentric

epistemologywasgeneratedbytheKazakhpoet-philologistOlzhasSuleimenov,whosebookAz i Ia(1975)influencedSovietcultureasFanon’sorSaid’sworkdidotherpartsoftheworld.

WhatIamproposing,then,isarenewedfo-cusontheregionsoftheEurasianperiphery,acommitmenttothelocalarchivethatrequirescarefulstudyoflanguagesandsourcesoutsideRussianandanabilitytocontemplateculturalphenomenathatexceedthePetrineparadigmofRussiaandtheWest.Thisprojectmustbecomple-mentedbyanopennesstothekindsofquestionsalreadybeingposedinotherpartsoftheglobebytransnationalmethodologiessuchaspostcolonialstudies.SuchworkmightpointtoaconvergenceamongSlavicstudies,comparativeliterature,andworknowpursuedinvariousareastudiesinsti-tutes.Forthepastfewyears,IhavebeenlearningGeorgianandstudyingrevolutionaryTbilisiasaculturalsite—asitefarfromthestormingoftheWinterPalace,tobesure,butalsooneofmultiplelanguagesandethnicities,whereanticolonialna-tionalismcompetedwithbothMenshevismandBolshevism,wherefindesiècleaestheticismco-existedwiththefuturistavant-gardeandNearEasternformsofbardicrecitation,andwhereper-hapsmoremodernities,localandimported,wereimaginedthaninParisorSaintPetersburg.

Harsha Ram UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

Works Cited

Larsen,Neil.“Imperialism,Colonialism,Postcolonial-ism.”A Companion to Postcolonial Studies.Ed.HenrySchwarzandSangeetaRay.BlackwellCompanionstoLit.andCulture.Malden:Blackwell,2000.23–52.

Said,Edward.Orientalism.NewYork:Pantheon,1978.Suleimenov,Olzhas.Az i Ia. Kniga blagonamerennogo chi

tatelia.Alma-Ata:Zhazushy,1975.vonHagen,Mark.“Empires,Borderlands,andDiasporas:

EurasiaasAnti-paradigmforthePost-SovietEra.”American Historical Review109.2(2004):40pars.10July2006 <http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/�ahr/109.2/hagen.html>.

On Some Post-Soviet Postcolonialisms

Thetitle“AreWePostcolonial?”begsseveralre-latedquestions.First,whois“we”?Theresidents


oftheformerSovietUnionanditsformersatellitesinEasternEuropeandelsewhere?Theintellectualcommunitiesinthosecountries?Thediasporaswithrootsinthosecountries?Theforeign-based(especiallyWestern-based)scholarsoftheregion’scultures?Asacitizenofaformer“white”colonyoftheRussianandSovietempiresandasanacademicnowbasedintheUnitedStates,Iwouldarguethatyes,definitely,Iampostcolonial;however,myre-marksherewillnotfocusonautoethnography.

Thequestionsoutlinedabovearetangledupwithanother,relatedsetofquestions.Howdoesoneassertpostcoloniality?Isitsufficientmerelytoclaimit,asIjustdid?Shouldalegitimationofthisclaimproceedbywayofargumentation,ordoesitrequireasanctionfromsomeexternaldisciplin-aryauthority?(Inasimilarvein,whensomefif-teenyearsagomanySlavicandEasternEuropeanintellectualsassertedtheneedtoconsidertheircountries’culturalconditionsaspartofpostmod-ernismasaglobalphenomenon,manyWesternculturaltheoristsvoicedtheirreservations,andattimesevenstrongopposition,totheassertion.)Simultaneously,otherquestionsarise:Whatkindsofusesorappropriationsofthediscourseonpost-colonialismcanbedocumentedintheculturesofthisregionandinscholarshipfocusingonthem?Isarepresentativeofanimperialculturepostco-lonialtoo?Ispostcolonialismindeedacategorywithglobalapplicability,asDavidChioniMoorearguedinPMLAin2001?Ispostcolonialismanappropriatedesignationforempiricalsociopoliti-calreality—thebroadspectrumofculturalpro-duction—oronlyforacademicdiscourse?Whyisitthatwhenrepresentativesofacademiccom-munitiesstudyingnon-Russianculturesintheregionassertedtheneedtolookattheex-Sovietworldthroughapostcoloniallensasearlyas1992(oneoftheearliestsuchattemptswasmadebytheUkrainianAustralianscholarMarkoPavlyshyn),theywereignoredorridiculedbytheoverwhelm-ingmajorityofRussianintellectualsandWestern-trainedspecialistsonRussianculture?Why,adozenyearslater,didmanyofthesameintellec-tualsandspecialists,inRussiaandtheWest,sud-denlyhaveachangeofheart?

Onepossibleexplanationforthischangeliesintheirstrategicmovetostakeoutdisciplinaryauthority.Intermsofdisciplinarydesignations,

adistinctionbetweencolonialdiscourseanaly-sisandthefocusonpostcolonialismneedstobeborneinmind.Iftheformerhasavenerablehis-toryinthestudyoftheRussianandSovietem-pires(WalterKolarz’s1952studyRussia and Her ColoniesisanexamplefromtheWest),thelatterisarecentandcontradictoryphenomenon.Theremainderofmyremarkswillfocusonthestra-tegicappropriationofsomeelementsofthedis-courseonpostcolonialismbyRussianacademics.Throughoutthe1990s,postcolonialismwasper-hapstheonlymajorcontemporarytheoreticaldis-coursepersistentlyignoredbyRussianacademics.Asrecentlyas1998,forinstance,aRussiansurveyoftheWesterndiscourseonpostmodernismla-beledEdwardSaida“well-knownliteraryscholarofa leftist-anarchistorientation”andGayatriChakravortySpivaka“sociallyengagéfeministdeconstructionist”(Il'in107–08,125).1Asitbe-ginstoregisterontheintellectualradarofsomeRussianscholars,postcolonialismisfindingasomewhatunexpectedapplication—insupportofaviewthatRussia,startingwithPetertheGreat’sreforms,developedasaself-colonizingstate.

Therootsofthisargumenthavebeentracedtothewritingsofthenineteenth-centuryphiloso-pherPetrChaadaev,butitsrediscoveryincontem-poraryculturaldiscoursehasbeencreditedtoa1990essaybyBorisGroys.ThereformsofPeterI,assertsGroys,

constituteasuigenerisactofself-colonizationbytheRussianpeople:oneofitsparts,asitwere,pretendedtobeforeigners,intheirmostfrighteningandthreateningincarnation,andstartedconsistentlyandradicallypersecutingeverythingRussianandimposingeverythingthatbythestandardsofthattimewascon-sideredmodernizedandWestern....[A]saresultofthiscruelinoculation,RussiasaveditselffromrealcolonizationbyaWestthatsurpassedittechnicallyandmilitarily. (358)

AleksandrEtkindhasattemptedtointegrateGroys’sthesiswiththepostcolonialparadigm.IntheRussianhistoriographicaltradition,heargues,Russiancolonizationisviewedasbeingofasettlertype,“anexpansionoftheRussianpeople”asitcreated“itsownterritory,”whileWesterncoloni-


zationisseenasaproductofgeographicdiscover-iesandmilitaryconquests.“Thenotions,”Etkindwrites,“areusedinawaythatmakesRussiancol-onizationcomeacrossasagooddeedandEuro-peanasbad.InthecaseofEurope,colonizationisdefinedinamannerthatpresupposesdecoloniza-tion,whileinthatofRussiathedefinitionmakesdecolonizationlogicallyimpossible”(64–65).

AcriticaltonebarelyregistersinEtkind’sanalysisofthismodel;eventheconquestoftheCaucasuswas“notquitecolonial”forEtkind,since “after the incorporation of Georgia it[thenorthernCaucasus]founditselfinsidetheempire’sterritory”(63).Inotherwords,onceanoncontiguouscolonyisappendedtotheRus-sianempire,theimperativeistonaturalizeitbyconqueringtheterritoryinbetweenandrestoringcontiguity.Ineffect,EtkindperpetuatesaspectsofRussiancolonialistideology,providingevidenceofhowfarRussianculturestillisfrom“find[ing]apositive,enlightenedsolution”totheenduringlegacyofcolonization,asolutionEtkindcallsforattheendofhisessay.

Perhapsthemostthought-provokinginstancetodateofRussianengagementwithpostcolonialtheory can be found in Madina Tlostanova’s2004bookPostsovetskaia literatura i estetika transkul'turatsii(“Post-SovietLiteratureandtheAestheticsofTransculturation”).Herbook,moreconversantwiththeorizationsofpostcolonialismandglobalizationthananypreviousworkintheRussianacademy,carriesastrongautobiographi-calinvestmentandhighlightstheauthor’sintel-lectualpositionasarepresentativeofrussophonenon-ethnically-Russianintelligentsia.

Thisvolume’sprimarytroubleliesinitsex-cessiveprivilegingofthepositionofapostcolonialhybridintellectualwhoisspeakingto,andinthecontextof,theacademicinstitutionsoftheformermetropoleandinitsdisdaintowardallnational-istdiscoursesofresistance.Tlostanova’sstrategi-callydifficultself-positioningassomeonemultiplycolonizedand“othered”—someonewhorejectsthehumiliatingpositionsofa“nativeinformant”andof“apoliticalactivistwhouseshisothernessinhisfavor”—isproductivewhenTlostanovacritiquesthemainstreamRussianintellectualdiscoursebutisproblematicinitsrejectionofthepossibilityofameaningfulpoliticsofresistance.

Tlostanova’sinterestintransnationalwritinginEnglishpromptshertoseeksimilarmanifesta-tionsinpost-SovietRussia.Shelimitsherresultsbysolelyexaminingconventional,plot-drivennarrativefiction:theonly“positiveheroes”thatemergeinherbookareAndreiVolos,anethni-callyRussianwriterwhogrewupinTajikistanandisbestknownforhisnovelKhurramabad,whichallegoricallyportraysthecollapseofthe(imagined)multilingualandmulticulturalutopiaoftheSovietprojectanditsdescentintoethnichatredandtheruthlessviolenceofcivilwar,andAfanasiiMamedov,awriterofAzeriJewishback-groundwhoseworkfocusesonthesimilarcol-lapseofthemultilingualandmultiethniccityofhischildhoodandyouth,Baku.BothwritersarenostalgicforthepurportedmulticulturalismofthesecolonialSovietsites,andTlostanovaappearstofindsolidaritywiththem.Herapprovalofthesetextscontrastswithherscornfortheonlynon-Russian-languagepost-Soviettextssheconsiders:twoUkrainiannovels,YuriAndrukhovych’sTheMoskoviadandOksanaZabuzhko’sField Work in Ukrainian Sex (270–81;173–82).Publishedmonths before Ukraine’s Orange Revolution,Tlostanova’sbookisaparadoxicalcombinationofacalltorethinktheRussianimperiallegacy,asymptomaticrepresentationofpersistingimpe-rialistprejudices,andacautionaryinstanceofastrategicdiscursiveappropriationgoneawry.

Althoughtheworksdiscussedaboveconsti-tuteasomewhatdispiritinginstanceoftheoreticaltravelfromtheWestintoRussia,thefactthatRus-sianscholarsarebeginningtoengagewiththedis-courseonpostcolonialismcanonlybewelcomed.Onehopesthattherecentculturalandgeopoliti-calrealignmentswithintheformerSovietempiresometimesreferredtoasthe“coloredrevolutions”willeventuallypromptamoreradicalrethinking,andworkingthrough,ofRussia’simperiallegacy,notonlybyscholarsoutsideRussiabut,crucially,bythoseparticipatinginthecountry’sinternalin-tellectualdebateaswell.

Vitaly Chernetsky HarvardUniversity

Note

1.Alltranslationsaremine.


Works Cited

Etkind,Aleksandr.“Fukoitezisvnutrenneikolonizatsii:Postkolonial'nyivzgliadnasovetskoeproshloe.”Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie49(2001):50–73.

Groys,Boris.“Imenagoroda.”Utopiia i obmen.Moscow:Znak,1993.357–65.

Il'in,Il'ia.Postmodernizm ot istokov do kontsa stoletiia.Moscow:Intrada,1998.

Kolarz,Walter.Russia and Her Colonies.NewYork:Prae-ger,1952.

Moore,DavidChioni.“IsthePost-inPostcolonialthePost-inPost-Soviet?TowardaGlobalPostcolonialCritique.”PMLA116(2001):111–28.

Pavlyshyn,Marko.“Post-colonialFeaturesinContem-poraryUkrainianCulture.”Australian Slavonic and East European Studies6.2(1992):41–55.

Tlostanova,Madina.Postsovetskaia literatura i estetika transkul'turatsii: Zhit' nikogda, pisat' niotkuda.Mos-cow:EditorialURSS,2004.


Documents

Forum: Conference Debates