3.2dube01
Post on 14-Apr-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 1/24
Savi Sawarkar, untitled, 2000, mixed media on paper. Born a dalit
(“untouchable”) in India, Sawarkar now lives and works in Mexico. In this
composition, he draws on his experience in the (colonial/modern) town of
Taxco to depict figures of the other “Indian” subaltern. Drawing
reproduced with the permission of the artist.
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 2/24
SPECIAL ISSUE
Critical Conjunctions
Foundations of Colony and Formations of Modernity
Introduction
Colonialism, Modernity, Colonial Modernities
Saurabh Dube
Over the past two decades, a variety
of critical perspectives have questioned the place of the West as history,
modernity, and destiny.1
First, recent years have seen vigorous challengesto univocal conceptions of universal history under the terms of modernity.
Imaginatively exploring distinct pasts forged within wider, intermeshed
matrices of power, these works have queried the imperatives of historical
progress and the nature of the academic archive, both closely bound to ag-
grandizing representations of a reified Europe (Amin 1995; Banerjee Dube
1999; Chakrabarty 2000; Dube 1998; Fabian 2000; Florida 1995; Hartman
1997; Klein 1997; Mignolo 1995; Price 1990; Rappaport 1994; Skaria 1999;
see also Axel 2001; Mehta 1999; and Trouillot 1995).Second, close to our times, dominant designs of a singular moder-
nity have been increasingly interrogated by contending intimations of het-
erogeneous moderns. Such explorations have critically considered the di-
vergent articulations and representations of the modern and modernity
that have shaped and sutured empire, nation, and globalization. As a re-
sult, modernity/modernities have been themselves revealed as contradictory
and contingent processes of culture and control, as checkered, contested
histories of meaning and mastery—in their formation, sedimentation, and
N e p a n t l a : V i e w s f r o m S o u t h 3.2
Copyright 2002 by Duke University Press
197
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 3/24
198
Nepantla
elaboration. It follows, too, that questions of modernity increasingly often
escape the limits of sociological formalism and exceed the binds of a priori
abstraction, emerging instead as matters of particular pasts and attributesof concrete histories—defined by projects of power, and molded by provi-
sions of progress (Chatterjee 1993; Cooper and Stoler 1997; Coronil 1997;
Comaroff and Comaroff 1997; Dube forthcoming; Ferguson 1999; Gilroy
1993; Gupta 1998; Hansen 1999; Prakash 1999; Price 1998; Taussig 1987;
see also Appadurai 1996; Escobar 1993; Harootunian 2000; Piot 1999; and
Rofel 1999).
Third and finally, for some time now critical scholarship has con-
tested the enduring binaries—for example, between tradition and moder-nity, ritual and rationality, myth and history, and East and West—that
have shaped influential understandings of pasts and key conceptions of
cultures. On the one hand, such theoretical accounts have derived sup-
port from critiques of a subject-centered reason and a meaning-legislating
rationality that have thought through the dualisms of Western thought
and post-Enlightenment traditions. On the other, critical discussions of
cultures and pasts have also challenged the analytical binaries of mod-
ern disciplines, interrogating essentialized representations of otherness andquestioning abiding representations of progress that are variously tied to
the totalizing templates of universal history and the ideological images of
Western modernity (Asad 1993; Bauman 1992; Comaroff and Comaroff
1992; Errington 1998; Gray 1995; Lander 2000; Mignolo 2000; Said 1978;
Rorty 1989; Taussig 1997; see also Lowe and Lloyd 1997; and Scott 1999).2
At the same time, the reflections of a singular modernity, the
representations of universal history, and the reifications of overriding op-
positions are not mere specters from the past, now exorcised by critical
epistemologies and subversive knowledges. Rather, such lasting blueprints
continue to beguile and seduce, palpably present in the here and now: both
the events of 11 September 2001 and their aftermath, including Operation
“Enduring Freedom”—as phrase and program—are striking examples.
Articulating dominant traditions of social theory and animating inherited
terms of everyday discourse, these resilient mappings and their determinate
reworkings lead a charmed life in the academy and beyond in both Western
and non-Western contexts.
Critical Questions
The concerns sketched above are better understood as constituting the
wider theoretical context of the essays that comprise this special issue, as
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 4/24
199
Dube . Introduction
horizons that these articles engage in inherently different ways. Indeed, it
is through critical considerations of colonial modernities that the contribu-
tions here seek to articulate questions of difference, power, and knowledge.At the same time, it would be a mistake to claim either a transparent con-
notation or a precise status for colonial modernities as a category. Now, this
Janus-faced neologism highlights the acute enmeshments of determina-
tions of colony and formations of modernity, particularly when colonial
modernities are regarded as a broad rubric that indicates historical pro-
cesses and critical perspectives, entailing particular locations of enuncia-
tion, interrogating the disembodied view-from-nowhere that becomes the
palpable view-for-everywhere. Precisely for this reason, however, colonialmodernities indicate both a contentious theoretical terrain and a contending
analytical arena. And it is exactly such contention that can turn this concept-
metaphor into an enabling resource for dialogue and debate. Therefore, it
is useful to raise two sets of questions in order to think through colonial
modernities.
First, what is at stake in conjoining questions of colonialism with
issues of modernity to produce and endorse the hybrid figure, colonial
modernities? What marks of difference and which lineaments of power areunderscored through such moves? Indeed, in what ways are we using the
term modernity and its plural modernities here? In speaking of modernity,
is the reference to an overarching ideology that accompanied the work of
capital, the expansion of empire, and the fabrication of colonialism over
the last five hundred years? Or are modernities also to be understood as
particular historical processes predicated upon distinct but wide-ranging
intersections of the metropole and the margins, upon discrete yet critical
encounters between the colonizer and the colonized?
Clearly, these different orientations actually come together, each
questioning dominant representations of the modern, both challenging
singular self-images of modernity, including in the essays that follow. The
point is simple. Rather than imagining and instituting a facile synthe-
sis between contending understandings of modernity and modernities—
and, indeed, between competing conceptions of colonialism and history—
consciously recognizing such distinctions and differences as productive
tensions can be a source of strength in thinking through colonial moder-
nities. Such acknowledgement entails the admission that we already labor
in the light of anterior understandings, and always work in the shadow
of prior categories—in order to revisit the binds and exclusions between
globalization and colonialism, modernity and “coloniality,” world-system
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 5/24
200
Nepantla
and colonial modernities, the one set engaging and extending the other
copula.
Second, what are the critical imperatives of reading and writing aswe consider stipulations of difference and provisions of power? In a wide
variety of contemporary scholarly discourses both power and difference can
appear as prefabricated entities, already given categories, and a priori terms
of discussion. To think through/against such dispositions is to recognize the
impossibility of escaping modernity and history by means of talking and
writing cures, which often succumb to the seduction of lurking nativisms,
third-world nationalisms, and endeavors that turn their backs on the here-
and-now. Such critical endeavor is also a matter of being self-consciousabout the particular ways in which we put forward notions of difference
and premises of power. At the same time, if such moves are necessary
exercises, two other considerations stand out.
On the one hand, it is important to be vigilant of the manner in
which difference is inflected by power. On the other, one must recognize the
way in which power is shot through with difference. This is not to indulge
in sophistry. Take the example of that plural, modernities. In speaking
of modernities are we merely saying that Indian modernity is differentfrom German modernity, which is then different from, say, Mexican or
Venezuelan modernity? If this is the case, what modalities of power are
occluded here, not only in relation to authoritative grids of empire and
globalization, but also within non-Western formations of state and nation?
Equally, by invoking a bloated and singular modernity centered on the
West in order to interrogate the homogenizing impulses of projects of
power, do we perhaps succumb to reified representations of an imaginary
but tangible Europe that overlook the labor of difference within the work
of domination?
In other words, what understandings of prior traditions/pasts and
which conceptions of present history/progress do we bring to bear upon
our renderings of power and difference? What anterior idea animates our
appropriation of history, universal or provincial? Which immediate image
articulates our apprehension of modernity, singular or plural? Is it possible
to work through terms of discourse in which power is not construed as
totalized terrain and where difference does not constitute a ready antidote to
power—whether as insurgent identity, ecstatic hybridity, or preconfigured
plurality?
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 6/24
201
Dube . Introduction
Divergent Conjunctions
The nature of the questions I have just raised indicates my intention in this
introduction to generate debate rather than to garner consensus. This isin keeping with the tenor of this special issue, where contending positions
access and exceed each other, the exchange and the surplus intimating
newer directions. At work here are particular terms of interaction between
distinct bodies of scholarship, especially writings on and readings out of
Latin America and South Asia, as they bear upon the critical conjunctions
at the heart of colonial modernities.
In authoritative apprehensions and commonplace conceptions
flowing from Latin America, intimations of modernity have been longpresent, generally reflected in the image of a reified Europe. Albeit with
specific lacks and within particular limits, Latin America has itself been
envisioned as part of the Western world, a result of dominant mappings
and authoritative “metageographies” that have split the world into Occi-
dent and Orient, West and East. With few exceptions, questions of colo-
nialism have been understood in Latin America as occupying a dim and
distant past.3 Not surprisingly, issues of empire—themselves narrowly
conceived—continue to be widely considered as the distinct domain of specialist scholars of a long-forgotten period in Latin American history. In
such dispositions salient traces of colonial cultures in modern Latin Amer-
ica chiefly consist of the monumental architecture and the grand art of a
distinctive, bygone era.
Against the grain of these dominant orientations, an important
body of critical thought on Latin America today focuses on the subter-
ranean schemes and the overwrought apparitions of the modern and the
colonial—in the past and the present. In other words, this corpus critically
considers the spectral place and tangible presence of colonial stipulations of
knowledge/power within modern provisions of power/knowledge. Con-
sequently, such moves, acutely represented in this issue, have also held up
a mirror to modernity as a deeply ideological project, a ruse of history, a
primary apparatus of domination, here now and there tomorrow (Dussel
1995; Lander 2000; Mignolo 1995, 2000; Castro-Gómez 1998).
In South Asia, colonial questions have occupied a critical place in
writings on the region’s history, economy, and society for several decades
now. The immediacy of empire and the force of nationalism—as anti-
colonial movement and nation-building project—have both played an im-
portant role. Over time, this has resulted in the accumulation of distinct
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 7/24
202
Nepantla
perspectives on colonial processes in South Asia, which have extended from
revisionist histories of colonial transitions, to historical ethnographies of im-
perial formations, to postcolonial perspectives associated with the SubalternStudies project and critical literary analyses.4
It is also the case, however, that that the import of modernity has
been critically considered in India only in recent times.5 Here the deter-
minations and direction of modernity in South Asia have been variously
cast as an enlightened trajectory of social transformation, an overween-
ing project laboring against creative difference, an authoritative apparatus
ever engendering critical alterity, and a historical process that produces
both exotic exceptions and historical sameness.
6
In most of these readings,current reflection on modernity has followed upon the prior presence of
the colony. Not surprisingly, newer critical writings on South Asia, also
represented in this issue, have sought to extend anterior understandings of
colony and present propositions of modernity through historical filters and
ethnographic grids, each in conjunction with the other (see, e.g., Appadu-
rai 1996; Chakrabarty 2000; Chatterjee 1993; Dirks 2001; Hansen 1999; and
Nandy 2001).
Recent years have seen the proliferation, in and out of print, of “al-ternative” and “early” modernities, “colonial” and “multiple” modernities,
attempts to write into the concept of modernity anterior histories, multiple
trajectories, alternative patterns (e.g., Barlow 1997; Burton 1999; Daedalus
1998, 2000; and Gaonkar 2001). Critical Conjunctions joins such exercises,
but it does so with its particular twist, its specific stipulations—based on
the salience of plural perspectives on colonialism, modernity, and colonial
modernities. For this special issue is shaped by encounters between the
distinct bearings toward colonialism and modernity that I outlined ear-
lier. Arguably, this plurality and contention constitute central strengths of
the corpus ahead, since they indicate diversity in cultures of scholarship
and theoretical orientations. For example, it is not enough to suggest that
the philosophically inclined essays in this issue are primarily interested in
the epistemological labor of colony and modernity, while the empirically
grounded articles are more concerned with the historical work of these cat-
egories. Actually, most of the essays tack between the two predilections,
inexorably mixing them up. In Critical Conjunctions different disciplinary
dispositions are enlivened by their interplay with distinct theoretical orien-
tations. Here intellectual diversity and theoretical distinction are enhanced
and extended, since, as they circulate together, one orientation interrupts
and exceeds the other disposition.
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 8/24
203
Dube . Introduction
These concerns are better understood in the light of the essays
themselves. A little later I will outline the specific arguments of each con-
tribution. Here it is useful to consider the dialogue and contention amongthese articles with regard to two critical questions that I broached earlier,
the intertwined issues of the linkages between colonialism and modernity
and the binds between power and difference. Let us turn, then, to the contri-
butions by Enrique Dussel, Edgardo Lander, and Santiago Castro-Gómez,
the three essays that open Critical Conjunctions.
Discussing the articulation between colonialism and modernity,
Dussel attempts to undo influential propositions—of a “subtle,” “second
Eurocentrism”—that project Europe as having been the center of theworld-system for the last five centuries. Lander interrogates the Eurocentric
premises at the heart of authoritative agreements to facilitate global capi-
tal. Castro-Gómez explores the enmeshments of the disciplinary power of
the modern nation-state with the hegemonic relationships of the mod-
ern/colonial world-system, also suggesting that although the structural
terms of global power remain in place, the means and strategies of their
legitimation have undergone crucial transformations. At the same time, in
spite of their different emphases, all three essays argue that the formationsof modernity are grounded in the foundations of colony, both colonial-
ism and modernity being apprehended as dominant European projects
of power/knowledge that form the exclusive core of a singular capitalist
world-system. Thus, when Castro-Gómez describes modernity as a series
of practices oriented toward the rational control of human life—entailing
the social sciences, global capitalism, colonial expansion, and the nation-
state—he is summing up a powerful perspective that is arguably also shared
by Dussel and Lander (and, of course, many others).
And what of the orientations of these three scholars toward the re-
lationship between power and difference? Dussel and Lander underscore
the authoritative thrust and the homogenizing impulse of recent Euro-
American modernity and of Eurocentric knowledge, respectively. Con-
fronting the exclusive trajectory of such power, which has underwritten
global capital, both emphasize the ethics of critical difference, the for-
mer locating alterity in “‘trans’-modernity,” and the latter emphasizing
the need to consolidate/recuperate alternative knowledges. For his part,
Castro-Gómez identifies modernity as a machine that engenders alterities,
even as it suppresses hybridity, multiplicity, ambiguity, and contingency in
the name of reason and through the designation of humanity. Under con-
ditions of postmodernity the continued hegemony of global capital within
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 9/24
204
Nepantla
the world-system is secured not through the repression of difference, but
rather through the production and proliferation of alterities. However, de-
spite such distinctions—including the productive “ambiguity” that attendsCastro-Gómez’s formulations of the fabrication of alterities under moder-
nity and postmodernity—these writings present power as emanating from
a singular locus and holding exclusive sway, quite as pure difference appears
as an answer to power here.
The ethical terms of such dispositions are at once elaborated and
extended by the essays that follow these three. Thus, in both explicit and
implicit ways, several of the later contributions configure colonial moderni-
ties as premised upon the mutual determinations of power and difference,upon the ceaseless dynamic of exclusion and inclusion—pointing toward
contingency and contradiction at the heart of such processes. Here there is
also no direct recourse to categories such as the “world-system” and “global
capital.” For example, Josefina Saldaña-Portillo unravels the productive
conjunctions at the core of a colonial modernity through two intertwined
procedures. On the hand, her essay traces the marks of difference engen-
dered by Spanish colonialism in its fabrication of the figure of the “In-
dian,” revealing continuities between a colonial governmentality and theMexican state. On the other hand, it outlines the work of such difference on
lineaments of power and their subversions in the modern Mexican nation,
especially the forging of an alternative modernity by the Zapatistas, who
straddle and scrabble revolutionary nationalism and the colonial-modern.
Guillermo Zermeño and Sudipta Sen highlight that the powerful
impulse within the modern nation and the colonial state toward excluding
subaltern subjects and colonized peoples has been equally accompanied
by the forceful drive to include them at the margins of the authoritative
grid of “civilization.” Zermeño underscores the “convergent-divergences”
between colonial apprehensions and a nationalist anthropology in Mexico
by discussing how these distinct modalities of knowledge nonetheless fab-
ricated the figure of the Indian as the “primitive” outsider who had to be
forged as the “improved” insider within both empire and nation. Sen shows
that the twin imperatives of British colonialism—lamenting the lack of a
true civil society in India while instituting a residual order of civil society
there—together constituted modalities of colonial rule that straddled the
line between dominance and hegemony.
The politics of exclusion and inclusion are ever entwined with the
interplay between power and difference, the terms of this dynamic find-
ing distinct expressions in Critical Conjunctions. For instance, in my own
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 10/24
205
Dube . Introduction
essay, I explore dominant projections and commonplace apprehensions of
“enchanted spaces” and “modern places,” which split the world while hold-
ing it together. Such mappings acutely indicate the salience of tracing theenmeshed determinations and entangled denials between power and differ-
ence. For it is precisely by splitting power and difference into separate poles
that critiques of modernity sharply reflect self-projections of the modern,
questions that are addressed by Madhu Dubey in her critical analysis of
academic and literary representations that increasingly cast the U.S. South
as an enchanted terrain of difference.
In Critical Conjunctions different theoretical stances engage dis-
tinct critical alignments, yet none of them give up their own cardinalpersuasions.7 For the aim of this special issue is not to legislate on colo-
nial modernities, resolving an inquiry in the manner of a problem by
adjudicating on it. On the one hand, it is important to restate that as critical
perspective and historical process colonial modernities emerge as a question
and a horizon better approached through distinct orientations, intimating
inquiries and indicating vistas that are best kept open. On the other, it
is useful to repeat that precisely on account of such differences between
theoretical dispositions, colonial modernities appear here rather less as agiven object predicated upon transcendental knowledge and omniscient
history, and rather more as a historical subject betokened by prior places
and particular pasts. It is time to describe such advances.
Crisscrossing Concerns
Our considerations open with an intervention by Enrique Dussel. Here
the Argentine philosopher recalls the moment of the “first Eurocentrism,”
which presented an immaculately conceived Europe realizing itself—from
its Greek origins through to its modern manifestations—as the centerpiece
and the end of universal history. He proposes that this authoritative ideal-
imaginary Europe came to be challenged by understandings of the “world-
system.” At the same time, according to Dussel, to assume along with
Immanuel Wallerstein that after the “discovery” of the Americas, from the
sixteenth century, Europe became the center of the world-system is to sub-
mit to a “second Eurocentrism.” It ignores the fact that until the latter part of
the eighteenth century, China—along with India (or “Hindustan,” the his-
torical term Dussel prefers)—remained an enormously important player in
the world-system of production and exchange, and that during this “first”
modernity the dominance of Europe was primarily an Atlantic phenome-
non. Indeed, Europe came to supplant China as the primary protagonist in
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 11/24
206
Nepantla
the world-system only after the “second” modernity of the Enlightenment
and the Industrial Revolution, revealing thereby that the centrality of Eu-
rope in the modern world is no more than 225 years old. All this has vital im-plications for Dussel. For the very recentness of European hegemony over
the colonial/modern world-system opens up a variety of “civilizational”
possibilities for transcending modernity and globalization. Proposing that
postmodern critiques of modernity remain confined within abiding Euro-
centric premises, Dussel finds alternative futures, rather, within the terms
and ethics of “‘trans’-modernity,” incorporating the cultures of the majority
of humanity that is excluded from modernity. These cultures, from their
very position of “exteriority,” point to other ethical worlds in the wake of capitalism.
Dussel’s emphases find distinct articulations in the contributions
by Edgardo Lander and Santiago Castro-Gómez. Lander explores the
geopolitical implications of Eurocentric apprehensions in the contempo-
rary world, insinuating that such knowledge is colonial in nature because
of its authoritarian assumptions and its totalizing thrust. The essay begins
with a brief consideration of the dualities at the heart of Eurocentric knowl-
edge. This makes possible an analysis of the often explicit assumptions thatshore up and sustain significant recent deliberations on global arrangements
of investment and commerce, namely, the Multilateral Agreement on In-
vestment and the proceedings leading to the creation of the World Trade
Organization. In place here is a particular construction of the liberal order
as the most “advanced” form of social organization, as the unquestioned
goal for all humanity. In this vision, the free market is the “natural state” of
society, and all counterclaims to its universalizing pretensions are “unnatu-
ral distortions.” This underlies the consolidation of a “free” legal/political
global order designed to secure and guarantee relentless freedom for invest-
ment, prohibiting collective action that questions the sway of capital, and
denying possibilities of both sovereignty and democracy. Indeed, Eurocen-
tric knowledge polarizes a privileged minority and an excluded majority
throughout the planet, also legitimating a predatory model of civilization.
It is barely surprising, therefore, that in Lander’s essay the critique of Euro-
centrism and the construction-recuperation of alternative knowledges are
vitally linked to “local” and “global” demands of communities and organi-
zations that challenge the increasing dominance of transnational capital.
In a wide-ranging article, Castro-Gómez discusses the mutual en-
tanglements between the nation-state, the social sciences, the “coloniality”
of power, and the capitalist world-system in the articulation of modernity,
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 12/24
207
Dube . Introduction
further exploring the terms of critical knowledge that are adequate for the
present. The Colombian scholar interrogates the “project of modernity,”
pointing to the centrality of the state and the social sciences within prac-tices of modernity that seek to disenchant and demagicalize—that is, to
control and master—the natural and social world in the mirror of “man”
and through the reification of “reason.” At work here are singular dis-
positions toward knowledge/power that produce coordinated profiles of
subjectivity entailing the “invention of the other.” At the same time, ac-
cording to Castro-Gómez, the question of the “invention of the other”
within the nation-state needs to be conjoined with considerations of the
modern/colonial world-system’s “longue durée macrostructures.” For thedisciplinary dispositions of modernity are anchored in a double “juridical
governmentality”—one exercised by the nation-state from within, and the
other articulated by the hegemonic terms of the colonial/modern world-
system from without. And it is entirely in tune with this logic that from the
seventeenth century onward—through their binary categories and imag-
inaries of progress, their endorsement of universal history and enmesh-
ments in statist modernization—the social sciences and social theory have
produced alterities from within and from without. The “coloniality of power” and the “coloniality of knowledge” derive from the same genetic
matrix.
How, then, are we to understand the notion of the “end of moder-
nity” with which the essay begins and closes? According to Castro-Gómez,
the project of modernity arrives at its “end” when the nation-state loses
its capacity to organize the social and material life of human subjects. As
modernity is now replaced by globalization, governmentality does not re-
quire an Archimedean point, a central mechanism of social control. Rather,
globalization entails a governmentality without government, a spectral and
nebulous dominance—the libidinal power of postmodernity that instead
of repressing differences stimulates and produces them. If this transforma-
tion is in tune with the systemic exigencies of global capitalism, the newer
requirements of power and capital have also brought about a “change of
paradigm” in the social sciences and the humanities. Here Castro-Gómez
critically considers the “postmodern condition”—as formulated by Jean-
François Lyotard, and expressed within cultural studies—to argue that the
end(s) of metanarratives of modernity in fact do not imply the death of
the capitalist world-system itself. Thus, the essay concludes that the task
of a critical theory of society in the present is to make visible the new
mechanisms of the production of differences in times of globalization.
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 13/24
208
Nepantla
Josefina Saldaña-Portillo addresses the question of colonial moder-
nities head on by considering the prior place of the colony and exploring
the present-productions of the modern in the making and unmaking of Mexico. Starting with the premise that the varieties of modernity in Latin
America all bear “the imprint of Spanish colonialism,” her essay resolutely
refuses to locate the figure of the Indian in a never-never land of enchanted
tradition, apart from determinations of domination, ahead of provisions of
power. Rather, it proposes that what appear today as the traditional charac-
teristics of Mesoamerican indigenous cultures are all products of “Spanish
colonial governmentality and economic exploitation.” The figure of the
“Indian” was produced within these processes, which at once “universal-ized” and “parochialized” indigenous identity. At the same time, far from
being passive victims, indigenous communities worked within the inter-
stices of these processes of power, producing value and meaning in surplus
of governmental techniques, thus creating cultural formations and resis-
tant identities that exceeded the colonial category of the lowly Indian. Not
surprisingly, the stipulations of “this colonial regime of difference” have
shaped the modern project of nation building in Mexico over the past two
centuries, revealing the contradictory articulation of Indian difference andnational identity within economies of power and regimes of representation
of state and modernity.
This sets the stage for Saldaña-Portillo’s exploration of how the
Zapatistas and their insurrection in southern Mexico have emerged from
within the terms of a revolutionary nationalism and the idioms of a colonial
modernity, where Zapatismo has appropriated and extended, accessed and
exceeded such stipulations. This case is made through a sensitive ethnog-
raphy of a political event—a dramatic representation by the Zapatistas in
the summer of 1996, inviting the participation of visiting outsiders. A the-
ater of politics, a play on power, the enactment of this episode hinged on
the staging of a silence by the Zapatistas, a silence with multiple civic and
ethical echoes that interrupted the noisy command of dominant Mexican
nationalism. The essay suggests that the staging of such a silence is actually
indicative of the Zapatistas’ presence as an “empty signifier” of civil soci-
ety, of Mexican community. Indeed, by oscillating between avowing and
claiming Indian difference and disavowing and vacating Indian particular-
ity, “the Zapatistas also present us with an alternative modernity.”
The figure of the “Indian” and the form of the “primitive” forged
by colonial knowledge and nationalist thought also constitute the subject of
Guillermo Zermeño’s essay, which focuses on the work of Manuel Gamio,
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 14/24
209
Dube . Introduction
widely considered to be the “father of modern anthropology” in Mexico.
Taking a cue from the philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s critical yet enabling read-
ing of Hegel, Zermeño’s goal is to acknowledge Gamio’s weighty legacyin order to transcend it. On the one hand, the work of Manuel Gamio
was shaped by late nineteenth-century positivist assumptions concerning
scientific knowledge in the service of national progress. To build a mod-
ern Mexico, the new science had to discover essential racial, cultural, and
economic patterns that would turn sociological observation into a means of
accurate prediction and effective governance. Based on acute distinctions
between “tradition” and “modernity” and “backwardness” and “progress,”
this matrix of knowledge fostered the economy of power of the modernnation-state. It also underlay Gamio’s own division of the Mexican nation
into two poles: its white population representing “modern civilization,” the
“dynamic” harbingers of “progress”; and its indigenous and mestizo groups,
“the great underdeveloped and passive majority.” On the other hand, Gamio
sought to develop a disciplinary practice adequate for the twentieth cen-
tury, an applied endeavor geared toward “social improvement,” separating
magic from truth, under the dispensation of a new anthropology. Taken
together, for Gamio, the task of applied anthropology was to work with thestate to transform the “cultural backwardness” of the indigenous subject in
the image of the modernity and the civilization of the white citizen. The
very procedures of this new knowledge produced an “essential image of
the Indian,” which could then be manipulated in time and space.
It is against this background that Zermeño traces the “divergent
convergences” in Gamio’s anthropology and that of Fray Bernardino de
Sahagún, the colonial chronicler of the sixteenth century. Both construe the
Indian as an object of knowledge that had to be healed—of “idolatry” for
Sahagún, of “backwardness” for Gamio. Both construct knowledges that
were bound to wider political projects—the first, colonizing-evangelizing,
and the second, building a modern nation. In each case, the construction
and consolidation of indigenous “otherness” also constitutes the means and
mechanism to assail and diminish this difference. The precise divergences
between the projects of Gamio and Sahagún go hand-in-hand with the
profound convergences among them, so that “the century of Mexican lib-
eral nationalism”—in its bourgeois and revolutionary incarnations—itself
emerges as the “second conquest” of the Indian world. Yet it would be
hasty to confine such questions to the past. As Zermeño poignantly asks,
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 15/24
210
Nepantla
what is the guarantee that present anthropological apprehensions of indige-
nous peoples do not continue to be inscribed within related teleologies of
progress?Abiding terms of history and ethnography, cultural politics and
political cultures form the locus of my own contribution, in which I ex-
plore the persistent seductions of enchanted spaces and modern places in
widespread “metageographies” shaped by the vision of a universal his-
tory, and articulated by the provisions of historical progress. These sets
of spatial imaginings and structured dispositions are closely connected to
colonial entanglements and articulations of the nation-state, to determi-
nations of difference and stipulations of sameness, playing a critical rolein the imagination and institution of the modern disciplines and the con-
temporary world. On the one hand, I present such lineaments through
ethnographic descriptions, first of a scholarly conference, and later of the
opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Sydney, pointing toward the
spectral presence of the enchanted and the modern that haunts authorita-
tive apprehensions and commonplace conceptions. On the other, I consider
the unsaid and the under-thought of academic deliberation, which also
have rather wider implications. Here the figures of an already enchantedtradition and the forms of an always disenchanted modern lie before the
privilege of vision and the distinction of voice in imagining and instituting
the past and the present. At the end I argue that at stake in thinking through
such mappings are questions of the mutual determinations of power and
difference.
Such cartographies come alive further as Madhu Dubey puts the
spotlight on another South, discussing the discourses of difference con-
cerning southern regional specificity that have burgeoned in the United
States since the 1970s. She proposes that a “spatialized cultural politics of
difference,” emphasizing particularity, diversity, and the situated nature of
all knowledge is a hallmark of the “postmodern” era. The recent reflec-
tions of the regional difference of the U.S. South are exemplary of these
wider bearings. Here Dubey explores writings across a range of disciplines
and genres, including the work of Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, Houston
Baker Jr., Addison Gayle, the anthropologist Carol Stack, and the historian
Eugene Genovese. Thereby, Dubey unravels the widespread construction
of the South as a rural, premodern, enchanted arena precisely at the mo-
ment when it is becoming increasingly industrialized and ever more urban.
Indeed, she interprets the southern turn in U.S. culture as a distinct re-
sponse to processes of economic and cultural change that have dramatically
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 16/24
211
Dube . Introduction
transformed the South. Here the discursive construction of the South as
a magical zone of arrested “development” is crucial to its operation as an
Archimedean lever for the critique of global capitalism and impersonalmodernity. Dubey underscores both the problems and the possibilities of
current quests to preserve southern cultural difference.
What are the epistemological entanglements of contemporary cri-
tiques of Eurocentric knowledge and modern power? In a provocative es-
say, Rubén Chuaqui cautions against the dangers of the relativism that can
attend these arenas, which militate against the very possibility of objective
understanding, especially of the radically “other.” Chuaqui acknowledges
that the precise “distortions” unraveled by Edward Said’s powerful in-dictment of “Orientalism,” for example, have long characterized Western
representations of all non-European others, ever enmeshed with modalities
of power. At the same time, Chuaqui argues that to ground such representa-
tions in a “gnoseological relativism” actually undermines the positions and
subjectivities being defended. He proposes that most of what we apprehend
about human beings and social orders yet not all that we understand of them
rests on our comprehension of their cultures. This means that despite the
manifold problems of knowing and the inevitable residues of unknowa-bility, the cultures and the beliefs of the “other” are in fact knowable.
Here Chuaqui explores terms of incommensurability and commensurabil-
ity through different instances—dual or triadic conditions or subject states
projected as not depending on culture, even if they might have cultural
dimensions. These require that the observer leave, even if momentarily,
the position to which she or he belongs in order to ascertain from the one
side what lies on the other. Considering differences of experience, for ex-
ample, between male and female, madness and sanity, and among error,
certainty, and doubt, Chuaqui argues that none of these conditions are in-
commensurable conditions, which would make the experiences of one side
utterly incommunicable to the other. In other words, Chuaqui endorses a
relative relativism, which (devoid of paradox) will be a relativism anchored
in phenomena that are not relative.
In the issue’s final essays a historian of India and a historian of
Mexico, Sudipta Sen and Andrés Lira, undertake comparative reflections
on the experience of empire. Sen discusses colonial modernities by explor-
ing the relationship between civil society and the modern state, focusing on
colonial India while adducing comparative notes on the Spanish Empire.
He proposes that a useful manner to consider the difference between dom-
ination and hegemony is to take into account the exogenous origins of the
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 17/24
212
Nepantla
colonial state and its relative alienation from indigenous society. Here the
form and ambition of a colonial state are analyzed by uncovering the ho-
mologies and parallels in state formations in the metropole and the colony.Specifically, Sen finds that in many respects the ideology and practice of
colonial state formation straddled the line between acts of domination and
ambitions of hegemony. From its very inception the colonial state in British
India created a paradoxical image of Indian society and peoples. On the one
hand, this state form decried the lack of a true civil society in India and the
persistence of tyranny there. On the other, the colonial state’s requirement
to pass legislation and to govern the Indians meant that it had to bestow
on these subjects “a degree of volition and agency”—a residual order of “society,” or “civilization,” or “culture.” For the very “improvement” of the
Indians, their consent and compliance was imagined and elicited within
an apparition of civil society. The invention and institution of such a novel
colonial society in South Asia through legal and economic measures ac-
tually parallels the creation of a new order of colonial subjects in Spanish
America, although of course religious conversion did not play a significant
role in the British-Indian empire. Indeed, it is this fabrication of a new
social order that is crucial to apprehending colonial domination and itsattempts at hegemony in different parts of the modern world.
Drawing on his disciplinary capital as a lawyer and a historian,
Andrés Lira considers the work of the English legal scholar Henry S.
Maine. His essay underscores that Maine’s construal of history as the
“uninterrupted present of humankind” at once straddled and scrambled
blueprints of evolutionary progress, putting a question mark on the notion
of the “primitive,” his historicism interrupting the evolutionism charac-
teristic of the period. Indeed, Maine’s work exceeded both the narrow-
ness of nineteenth-century analytical jurisprudence and the individual-
ist/utilitarian premises of “European rationalism.” Here a critical role was
played by Maine’s understanding of the nature of the “village-community”
(especially entailing the patriarchal family and landed property), which
itself drew on his apprehension of communitarian dynamics and colo-
nial presence in British India. Specifically, Maine proposed that when an
effective external power—especially a “good” government seeking to pre-
serve prior “custom”—intervened in the life of the community, this led to
the latter’s “feudalization” and fragmentation. According to Lira, Maine’s
propositions regarding the village-community “as a past that was present”
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 18/24
213
Dube . Introduction
suggest important pathways in the comparative history of colonialism, par-
ticularly through a dialogue between the legal scholar’s writings and pro-
cesses bearing on indigenous communities under empire and nation inLatin America. For such an exchange highlights the salient possibilities of
critical conversations on subjects of colonialism, modernity, and colonial
modernities—from South Asia, through Europe, to the Americas.
A Final Word
Having brought to a close this description of the routes traveled and the
paths traversed by Critical Conjunctions, I should add that this special issue
of Nepantla has yet another distinction, one that I have been unable tounravel here. In addition to the differences in their theoretical orientations
and disciplinary dispositions, the contributions are also marked by distinct
styles of writing. While this may be the case with most cross-disciplinary
endeavors, it is possibly more true of the effort at hand. Six of the essays
here have been translated from the Spanish, which arguably only adds to
the divergent institutional locations shaping the writings. This plurality,
too, is characteristic of the possibilities and predicaments of the journey(s)
ahead.
Notes
This special issue of Nepantla is based on the proceedings of “Intersecting Histories
and Other Modernities,” a workshop held at the Colegio de México in June
2000. Lorenzo Meyer, Walter Mignolo, Pramod Misra, and Hugo Zemelman
also presented papers at the workshop that could not be included here. Jose-
fina Saldaña-Portillo could not attend the workshop but very kindly sent her
essay. Both the workshop and the special issue can only be understood as in-
tensely collaborative ventures. The editors particularly wish to thank Andrés
Lira, Benjamin Preciado, Walter Mignolo, David Lorenzen, Pilar Camacho,
Angelica Vargas, and all the participants at the workshop. Additional thanks
are due to Sudipta and Madhu for bearing the burden of food and fluids at
the close of the conference. We also gratefully acknowledge the critical insti-
tutional support of the Center for Asian and African Studies at the Colegio
de México, and of the Josiah Charles Trent Memorial Foundation at Duke
University. Nepantla’s two anonymous reviewers greatly aided the project
with their perceptive and sensitive comments, and Laura Carballido’s role as
a research assistant has been exemplary. If perfect editors were to be conjured
as part of academic utopias, Alex Martin at Nepantla would certainly be in the
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 19/24
214
Nepantla
running. Finally, this introduction had its (hesitant) beginnings in collabora-
tive labor, but later I completely recast the piece, writing it anew in order to
express very particular concerns. Therefore, the introduction appears underthe name of just one of the editors, who gratefully acknowledges the earlier
inputs of Edgardo Lander and Ishita Banerjee Dube.
1. The particular analytical dispositions to follow constitute overlapping theoretical
orientations, which have been expressed in a variety of ways, constituting
an enormous corpus. My bibliographic citations provide a few representative
examples.
2. This discussion will be more fully elaborated in Dube 2002.
3. Such exceptions include, for example, dependencia theorists and related scholars whohave apprehended the world in terms of an aggrandizing center and an
expropriated periphery, thereby instituting imperialism and neoimperialism
at the core of modern history.
4. Once more limitations of space permit only indicative references. Here the first ten-
dency is represented by Bayly 1983, 1988; and Washbrook 1988; the second, by
Cohn 1987, 1996; and Dirks 1987;and thethird, by Guha 1982–89, 1997; Chat-
terjee and Pandey 1992; Arnold and Hardiman 1994; Amin and Chakrabarty
1996; Bhadra, Prakash, and Tharu 1999; Bhabha 1994; and Spivak 1988. Re-
cent writings that critically engage all three orientations include Dube 1998;
and Skaria 1999.
5. This is not to deny the palpable place of provisos of progress in apprehensions of the
subcontinent. We find them in everything from historical debates on social
advance under colonial rule, to sociological celebrations of modernization
theory, to governmental seductions and everyday enchantments of the impor-
tance of being modern as a state, a nation, a people. Nor is it to overlook the
significance of the critique of modernity as embodied, for example, in the
thought and practice of Gandhi. Rather, my point concerns the recentness of
critical considerations of modernity in India within the academy. This also
brings up the salient distinctions between intimations of modernity in South
Asia and Latin America: imagined as a passage of history and instituted as
an attribute of nation building, representations and processes of modernity
in South Asia and in Latin America have both been imbued with difference
with respect to Europe. However, such distinctions have followed divergent
directions. Over the past two centuries, the tangible terms of imperial au-
thority, the immediate pasts of colonial rule, and the urgent designs of new
nations have meant that dominant articulations of modernity in South Asia
stand haunted by the presence of colonial difference and postcolonial dis-
tinction. Here the West has never been absent. And so for a long time, in a
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 20/24
215
Dube . Introduction
variety of ways, Indian modernity has been apprehended as almost the same,
but different. During this period, the lack of formal empire, the dominance
of a Creole elite, and the prior presence of colonial categories have engen-dered in Latin America an authoritative modern premised upon specters of
shared history and cultural affinity with Europe. Here Europe has been ever
ahead. Thus, Latin American modernity has been represented as different,
but almost the same.
6. These four distinct apprehensions of modernity are articulated by Gupta 2000; Nandy
1983; Prakash 1999; and Dube forthcoming, respectively. See also Kapur 2000;
and Sheikh 1997.
7. Clearly, the very conditions of possibility of dialogue, debate, and distinction amongthe essays collected here lie in the fact that these contributions address a
shared set of concerns, under the rubric of colonial modernities. First, issues
of authoritative dualities—and of the connections between modern disci-
plines and disciplinary power—run throughout the essays of, for example,
Castro-Gómez, Dussel, Lander, Chuaqui, Zermeño, and Dubey, as well as
my own, finding distinct expressions in each. Second, the more specific con-
cerns taken up in the issue reveal, equally, critical conjunctions and productive
divergences. A case in point is the fabrication of the figure of the lowly “In-
dian” in Mexico (Saldaña-Portillo and Zermeño); and the proliferation and
reification of difference under the postmodern condition (Castro-Gómez and
Dubey). Indeed, in the section that follows my goal is precisely to present
such binds and distinctions through the ordering of the essays and the means
of describing them.
References
Amin, Shahid. 1995. Event, Metaphor, Memory: Chauri Chaura, 1922–1992. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Amin, Shahid, and Dipesh Chakrabarty, eds. 1996. Subaltern Studies IX: Writings on
South Asian History and Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Arnold, David, and David Hardiman, eds. 1994. Subaltern Studies VIII: Essays in
Honour of Ranajit Guha. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Asad, Talal. 1993. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in
Christianity and Islam. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Axel, Brian. 2001. The Nation’s Tortured Body: Violence, Representation, and the
Formation of a Sikh “Diaspora.” Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 21/24
216
Nepantla
Banerjee Dube, Ishita. 1999. “Taming Traditions: Legalities and Histories in Eastern
India.” In Bhadra, Prakash, and Tharu 1999.
Barlow, Tani, ed. 1997. Formations of Colonial Modernity in East Asia. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1992. Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge: London.
Bayly, Christopher. 1983. Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age
of British Expansion, 1770–1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1988. Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bhabha, Homi. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bhadra, Gautam, Gyan Prakash, and Susie Tharu, eds. 1999. Subaltern Studies X:Writings on South Asian History and Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Burton, Antoinette, ed. 1999. Gender, Sexuality, and Colonial Modernities. London:
Routledge.
Castro-Gómez, Santiago, and Eduardo Mendieta, eds. 1998. Teorías sin disciplina:
Latinoamericanismo, poscolonialidad y globalización en debate. Mexico City:
Porrúa/USF.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial
Histories. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha, and Gyanendra Pandey, eds. 1992. Subaltern Studies VII: Writings
on South Asian History and Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Cohn, Bernard. 1987. An Anthropologist among the Historians and Other Essays. Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
. 1996. Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India . Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Comaroff, John, and Jean Comaroff. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination.
Boulder: Westview.
. 1997. Of Revelation and Revolution: The Dialectics of Modernity on the South
African Frontier. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cooper, Frederick, and Ann Stoler, eds. 1997. Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a
Bourgeois World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Coronil, Fernando. 1997. The Magical State: Nature, Money, and Modernity in
Venezuela. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Daedalus. 1998. Early Modernities. Special issue, 127.3.
. 2000. Multiple Modernities. Special issue, 129.1.
Dirks, Nicholas B. 1987. The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 22/24
217
Dube . Introduction
. 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dube, Saurabh. 1998. Untouchable Pasts: Religion, Identity, and Power among a Central Indian Community, 1780–1950. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
, ed. 2002. Enduring Enchantments. Special issue of South Atlantic Quarterly,
101.4. Forthcoming.
. Forthcoming. Stitches on Time: Colonial Cultures and Postcolonial Pasts.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Dussel, Enrique. 1995. The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of “the Other” and the Myth
of Modernity. Translated by Michael D. Barber. New York: Continuum.Errington, Shelly. 1998. The Death of Authentic Primitive Art and Other Tales of Progress.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Escobar, Arturo. 1993. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the
Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fabian, Johannes. 2000. Out of Our Minds: Reason and Madness in the Exploration of
Central Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ferguson, James. 1999. Expectations of Modernity: Myths and Meanings of Urban Life on
the Zambian Copperbelt. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Florida, Nancy. 1995. Writing the Past, Inscribing the Future: History as Prophecy in
Colonial Java. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Gaonkar, Dilip Parmeshwar, ed. 2001. Alternative Modernities. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Gilroy, Paul. 1993. The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Gray, John. 1995. Enlightenment’s Wake: Politics and Culture at the Close of the Modern
Age. New York: Routledge.
Guha, Ranajit, ed. 1982–89. Subaltern Studies I–VI: Writings on South Asian History and
Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
, ed. 1997. A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986–1995. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Gupta, Akhil. 1998. Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making of Modern
India. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Gupta, Dipankar. 2000. Mistaken Modernity: India between Worlds. New Delhi:
HarperCollins.
Hansen, Thomas. 1999. The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in
Modern India. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harootunian, Harry. 2000. Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in
Interwar Japan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 23/24
218
Nepantla
Hartman, Saidiya H. 1997. Scenes of Subjection: Terror, Slavery, and Self-Making in
Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kapur, Geeta. 2000. When Was Modernism: Essays on Contemporary Cultural Practice in India. New Delhi: Tulika.
Klein, Kerwin Lee. 1997. Frontiers of the Historical Imagination: Narrating the European
Conquest of Native America, 1890–1990. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lander, Edgardo, comp. 2000. La colonialidad del saber: Eurocentrismo y ciencias
sociales—Perspectivas latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization/Consejo
Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales.Lowe, Lisa, and David Lloyd, eds. 1997. The Politics of Culture in the Shadow of
Capital. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mehta, Uday Singh. 1999. Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British
Liberal Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mignolo, Walter D. 1995. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and
Colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
. 2000. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and
Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nandy, Ashis. 1983. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
. 2001. An Ambiguous Journey to the City: The Village and Other Odd Remains of
the Self in the Indian Imagination. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Piot, Charles. 1999. Remotely Global: Village Modernity in West Africa. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Prakash, Gyan. 1999. Another Reason: Science and the Imagination of Modern India.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Price, Richard. 1990. Alabi’s World. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
. 1998. The Convict and the Colonel: A Story of Colonialism and Resistance in the
Caribbean. Boston: Beacon.
Rappaport, Joanne. 1994. Cumbe Reborn: An Andean Ethnography of History. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Rofel, Lisa. 1999. Other Modernities: Gendered Yearnings in China after Socialism.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Said, Edward W. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.
Scott, David. 1999. Refashioning Futures: Criticism after Postcoloniality. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
7/30/2019 3.2dube01
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/32dube01 24/24
219
Dube . Introduction
Sheikh, Gulammohammed, ed. 1997. Contemporary Art in Baroda. New Delhi: Tulika.
Skaria, Ajay. 1999. Hybrid Histories: Forests, Frontiers, and Wildness in Western India.
Delhi: Oxford University Press.Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. New
York: Routledge.
Taussig, Michael. 1987. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror
and Healing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1997. The Magic of the State. New York: Routledge.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History.
Boston: Beacon.
Washbrook, David. 1988. “Progress and Problems: South Asian Economic and SocialHistory, c. 1720–1860.” Modern Asian Studies 22: 57–96.
top related