Postcolonialism: Theory, Practice or Process? (review)

Postcolonialism: Theory, Practice or Process? by Ato Quayson. New York: Blackwell, 2000. vii +208 pp. ISBN 0-7456-1713-1.

In a recent issue of PMLA, Gerald Graff laments the negative connotations that surround the practice of the "reductive" in academic criticism. Being called reductive, he suggests, has become the academic's worst nightmare and being complex has become the academic marker of success. But what we need increasingly, argues Graff, is to recognize the power of simplification, to enter into what he calls the "gist" business, to make our work accessible not only within the academy but also beyond it. Ato Quayson's new book, Postcolonialism: Theory, Practice or Process? is quite clearly in the "gist business" and as such its merits will rise or fall depending on one's approach to the "gist" enterprise.

One of the most difficult aspects of writing a book such as Quayson's is to decide at what level to pitch the message. Quayson notes that he has written the book for the "advanced undergraduate or the graduate student"(20) but he surely knows that those of us who have read his path-breaking Strategic Transformations in Nigerian Writing will be reading this book as well. Those of us who do read it will certainly experience the necessary disjuncture that such a split audience engenders. So while we may feel uneasy at some points in the text when the treatment of important thinkers is too quick or too reductive, we will surely keep reminding ourselves that the book is, in fact, addressed to those who are quite new to the field, to those for whom Said is not an everyday name, to those who would indeed appreciate getting the "gist" of it. Moreover, we must note that some of the discussions may even benefit those of us who have followed the debates but not as closely as Quayson. For instance, Quayson's summary of the essence of the debate between Marshall Sahlins and Gananath Obeyesekere will be welcomed for its conciseness and its accuracy.

Yet, it would be incorrect to read Quayson's book as a comprehensive survey of the field. Rather, the book is best read as a series of interventions in key debates in postcolonial studies by a writer who has one foot firmly set in the literary history and cultural traditions of Nigeria and the other in the canon of Anglo-American literature. Situated thus, Quayson's book demonstrates the major projects of postcolonial studies, not merely by describing them, but more significantly by practicing them. Thus, if the chapter on postcolonial historiography begins with a survey of the subaltern studies project, it concludes more compellingly by "doing" subaltern history with a reading of the Yoruba historian, the Rev. Samuel Johnson; if the chapter "Literature as a Politically Symbolic Act" begins with a general discussion of the relation between literature and politics, it ends with a demonstration of this relationship through a reading of Ben Okri and Ken Saro-Wiwa; and finally, while Quayson often reminds us of the importance of reading canonical literature against the grain, he masterfully shows us how one can do this when he presents us with his reading of The Merchant of Venice.

There is, then, a pretty even balance of show and tell in this book and that is one of its merits. Of course, like any book worthy of serious attention, Quayson's found me agreeing with some points and disagreeing with others. This is perhaps no place to present an extended discussion of my own quibbles, but let me at least list some of them. Here is what I found myself particularly liking: the reading of E. San Juan, Jr., and particularly the claim that a Marxist disposition need not necessarily preclude a poststructuralist strategy (13-14); the succint discussion of Achille Mbembe where Quayson is particularly careful not to come to a quick and easy judgment (34-39); and the excellent treatment of...