It has become a matter of course in the late twentieth century to examine the relations between countries of the first- and third-world. Out of these studies postcolonial theory has arisen to explain the power discrepancy between these two categorizations. European and North American imperial involvement in third-world countries has had a lasting impact, and not solely in terms of technological advances and social structure. The identities of citizens in their-world countries has been markedly shaped by their cultural deference to the imperialist countries. In The Language of African Literature, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o stresses that the African self-image has been upended by the suppression of their native tongues under British apartheid. Edward Said widens the scope somewhat with his essay Orientalism, which examines the effects of colonialism in the orient in relation to both the imperialists and the colonized.
Thiong’o initially argues that language serves a dual purpose, first as a method of communication and then as a vehicle for the transmission of culture. The two may or may not be interconnected: English serves both purposes in England, but in Africa it does not transmit culture, where the dominance of native languages remain. Thiong’o’s beliefs are rooted in Marxism, and indeed that is the starting point for the extract. He divides communication into three processes: Marx’s “language of real life”, speech as an imitation of that language, and writing as an imitation of speech. Culture emerges out of the repetition of these aspects of language; it is therefore a reflection of the history of a society. He then states that imperialism attempted to control the language of real life (means of production), but did so by commanding the culture of Africa. English was imposed upon Africans; its use was rewarded while use of native tongues was reprimanded. A similar alienation of native culture occurred in other areas of learning: history, sociology, literature; in every field Europe became the focus. Consequently, African children raised in such a context began to view the world not as Africans, but as colonial subjects. Highly educated Africans began to believe themselves as independent of imperialists, while at the same time they attempted to “Africanize English” instead of promoting the native languages of Africa. From this point Thiong’o reflects Foucault’s notion of rebellion implicit in authority. It was in fact the peasantry of Africa, excluded from the elite “language” circles, who kept such languages alive, and indeed, new ones were created. New writers emerged who talked about specifically African culture; born out of the peasantry they reflected its “folk” roots: “African literature can only be written in African languages ... of the peasantry and working class” (p. 372).
Said bases his essay on his definition of Orientalism: studies in every field – sociology, history, literature – that relate to the orient as described by westerners, as well as the practical (political) outcomes of such beliefs. More specifically, he defines it not in terms of the subject matter of the Orient and its peoples, but instead of the ideologies held by westerners which inform such studies. Orientalism more rightly becomes a ‘Derridian’ definition of Europe itself against the other of the orient. Such knowledge is inevitably politicized, and it is never the “pure” knowledge with which academics are supposed to engage. All studies of the Orient are “tinged and impressed with, violated by, the gross political fact” (p. 250), which consequently determines the author-as-imperialist to be superior to his subject. Said is quick to point out that such authority is not natural, but is instead a human creation governed by its own impulses of “taste and value” (p. 255). This fact is observable in many texts produced concerning the Orient; it in fact becomes the Althusserian problematic of such texts. Said then describes his methodology in detail, describing attempts to localize the author of a text in relation to the Orient (strategic localization), and the interrelations between texts (strategic formation). It is this interrelation between texts, and furthermore between these texts and society and history, that gives them authority over their subjects; the cumulative ideology of “Oriental” is imposed on the Orient. Consequently, the language of such discourse in fact alienates it from any true sense of the Orient.
