In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

44 From Colonial stereotypes to the Postcolonial Gaze The Need for an Evolution of the Imaginary dominique Wolton there exists no communication without a representation of the other, because the other is never a “reality,” but a virtuality. admittedly, this virtuality was able to acquire the (illusory) image of a “reality” in the colonial space, because the colonized other had a status, actually a nonstatus, that was relatively coherent within the dominant colonial stereotype. This means that some people were able to believe in a “real” connection between the image and the figure, making in some way a “being” out of this virtuality, that of the native. in our own postcolonial times, this vision admittedly persists, but not without issue or conflict. For there are now images posed against images, the real in the face of images, and a presence that shatters the imaginary colonial mirror. This can be called the “postcolonial reality.” This is valid for all stereotypes, be they colonial or not, located in the colonial past or within the postcolonial present. There exists no relationship with the other without representation, as indeed there exists no communication with the other without stereotypes.1 in the colonial space, the relationship of domination prevents communication, sterilizes the complexity of representation, and creates caricatures. This is what we inherit and this is what, because of contemporary counterimages, is progressively collapsing and being gradually replaced by new images, new eyes, new stereotypes. We cannot escape this representation inasmuch as it is external to us. it is the product of a colonial system and a gaze, of popular culture—which can then be “colonial”—of publicly or privately produced images . . . We cannot approach the other without stereotyping him or her.2 This is a fact. For that reason, one must be particularly cautious in bringing forth the very concept of stereotype and of its “colonial” or “societal” nature. indeed, to posit distinctions on the nature of a stereotype is extremely complex and risky, for one would need to distinguish between the product of a given time period in general and the direct impact of a system—such as colonialism—on the gaze as it is turned on the other. evidently, the constitution of stereotypes is the very “worst of things.” But at the same time we cannot escape it. it is utopian to believe that a world, or a society, can escape 536 From Colonial Stereotypes to the Postcolonial Gaze | 537 stereotypes.3 and even if there were bureaus of colonial propaganda in France (until the 1950s, the economic agency of the Colonies supervised local colonial propaganda), they did not last long from the perspective of historical time. at the outset, a stereotype can be defined as a repetition; it is also a reproduced generality that acquires preeminence, what Gianpaolo Ferrari has called a sort of vérité généralisable (generalizable truth).4 one must then refute the very notion of “state stereotype,” since speaking about a “state stereotype” presupposes complete control of the stereotype and of its diffusion, which is never the case. on the other hand, a stereotype also has the function of enhancing group cohesion (in our case, the group corresponds to the “colonizers”) and functions then as a means to cultivate a relationship of domination. to comprehend it, one must understand the idea of a “dominant culture of the gaze,” which can then be colonial , given the specific time. From this point of view, if one is able to speak of a state ideology and of a colonial ideology in the context of the Third republic, one cannot speak of a state stereotype, as no one controls it: it crosses social classes and immediately escapes its creators. admittedly, it imposes a certain type of gaze, but this is not automatically the dominant gaze inasmuch as it is immediately exposed to manipulation, mutation, and transformation.5 in some ways, it is a reification of a collective representation that is soon confronted with other representations , and also sometimes with other ideologies. The horizon of stereotypes always bumps into ideologies. How and When to deconstruct a stereotype? Collective representations of religion, science, the military, the colonies, and citizens normally evolve in time through periodic auto-reconfiguration, before settling in society and then reconfiguring themselves again.6 From this point of view, there are stereotypes about priests, soldiers, professors, “colonizers,” and indeed “natives.” We inherit them, and once again this is a fact. But at the same time, with a change in...

Share