Disciplining Race: Crossing Intellectual Borders in African American and Postcolonial Studies Kate Mcinturff One of the common conceits of intellectual work, particularly in postcolonial the- ory, is that it is cosmopolitan in nature. Postcolonial critic Edward Said has made a virtue of the intellectual who crosses political and cultural boundaries.! Julia Kristeva has theorized cosmopolitanism as a political and intellectual position in Nations Without Nationalism. In my own research into the recent development of the field of Postcolonial Studies, however, I have found that political borders have been quite effective in reducing intellectual exchanges between individuals work- ing, nominally, on the same topic. In this paper, I will argue that the US-Canadian border exists not only along the 4th Parallel but also extends its reach across aca- demic fields of inquiry —specifically, this paper will be looking to the divisions and potential intersections between Postcolonial and African American Studies. It is precisely because of this divide that I will attempt to provide a superficial outline of the concerns of Postcolonial Studies. Postcolonial Studies, or postcolo- nial theory, is a field which, roughly defined, addresses the structure and effect of colonial power relations. It examities the role of material, cultural, and psycholog- ical forces in maintaining, and disrupting those colonial power relations. While some scholars working in this field have addressed non-British Imperial histo- ries—notably Lisa Lowe and Ann Laura Stoler— most scholars working in postco- lonial theory have tended to focus on the history of British Imperialism and on the history of the states which were subject to British colonial rule.? At the moment there are a number of ethical and intellectual problems with which postcolonial theorists are grappling. My first forays into the field of African American Studies have led me to believe that these two disciplines share some of the same problems. As a result, I have begun to investigate the extent to which greater contact between African American Studies and Postcolonial Studies might be productive. © Canadian Review of Amencan Studies/Revue canadienne d'études oméricaines 30, no. 1, 2000 Ete evece eel ee cseuecvecseu eee eeceUecveeeU eee cmaN cae ct Meee eee eeeBefore proceeding to outline those common concerns, I would like to acknowledge that the differences between these two disciplines are also important. As postcolonial critic Aijaz Ahmad has suggested, postcolo- nial theory has “attracted few Black intellectuals” (87)3 Ahmad argues that the categories first of “Commonwealth” and later of “postcolonial” were understood in the US to refer, by definition, to “other minorities, the ones who were constituted not by slavery but by immigration” (87). This disciplinary and historical divide has also been noted by critics, such as Christine McCleod and bell hooks, working within African American Studies.4 These critics go on to argue, however, that the disciplines of African American Studies and Postcolonial Studies ought to be brought into greater contact —a goal which I obviously share. At the most general level, the intellectuals working in the disciplines of African American Studies and Postcolonial Studies have in common the desire that their work will be, on some level, emancipatory. This is a desire that takes many forms. The history of the ethical aims of these two disciplines is one which ranges from the desire for the emancipation of small intellectual and artistic circles, to the desire for the emancipation of cultural and social groups, and even of nation-states. This work will focus specifically on the interest which some of the intellectuals working in these two disciplines have in creating a cultural and intellectual sphere which is not Anglo- or Euro-centric. It will address the problems that arise out of the use of (European) post-structuralist models of culture in this context. Finally, it will examine the return of the notion of “experi- ence” to work in these fields. Canadian Review of American Studies 30 (2000) - Postcolonial Studies was formed, in part, out of the earlier field of Com- monwealth Literary Studies. Commonwealth Literary Studies began with the wider publication and circulation of texts by writers living in coun- tries once colonized by England (Moore-Gilbert 7). Critics Vijay Mishra and Bob Hodge have argued that the publication and critical examination of Commonwealth literatures that began in the 1960s functioned to re- create, in the field of literature, a picture of the world in which the outline of the now-diminished English empire was still clearly visible. They write as the British Empire broke up and attempted to sustain an illusion of unity under the euphemistic title of “Commonwealth,” a new object appeared on the margins of departments of English Literature: ‘Com- monwealth literature.” [...] “Commonwealth literature” did not include the literature of the centre, which acted as the impossible absent standard by which it should be judged. (276)The production of these literatures as “Commonwealth Literature” served to maintain a hierarchy in which English literature was held as the standard (and centre) against which the literatures of its former colonies were judged (Moore-Gilbert 26) Moreover, Commonwealth Literary Studies not only excluded the heterogeneous histories of non-British colo- nialism, it also tended to homogenize the experience of the diverse popu- lations which existed within the communities and countries of the “Commonwealth.” This is not to suggest that the publication and criticism of these materials cannot be emancipatory but rather that the discipline of Commonwealth Literary Studies, as it constituted itself in the 1960s and 1970s, was not wholly emancipatory, nor was it sufficiently self-reflexive. What is now generally called “postcolonial theory” emerged, in part, out of a burgeon- ing critical awareness within Commonwealth Literary Studies. Novelist and critic Wilson Harris is one of the first within Commonwealth Studies to signal a growing unease with the analysis of Commonwealth literature in terms of the new critical model of universal aesthetic values. He argues that such universalism elides the Furocentric and humanist values which not only construct the aesthetic principles of New Criticism, but which have also played a role in supporting European imperial projects. He writes: {1 wonder] in what degree such humanism is in itself subconsciously aligned to the very colonial prejudices it claims to deride which give it a new narcissistic density of “complete” literatures and “enthrallingly interesting colonial products.” [.. | An unconscious political irony is in process of being born within the telling silences of the family of the Word and this is one of the first steps (who knows?) towards a radical change of tone in the dialogue of vested interests between old worlds and new. (19) Similar critiques were levelled by Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Chinua Achebe in the late 1970s and early 1980s.* The result of these debates was, in part, the vein of postcolonial theory that addresses itself specifically to con- structing analytical frameworks through which to read the vested inter- ests of both colonial and postcolonial literatures. These concerns have a precedent in the US in the early-twentieth-century- debates concerning the production and criticism of African American lit- erature. In a 1930 essay, Sterling A. Brown addressed the role of cultural production within the movement towards political emancipation. His cri- tique anticipates a number of issues which have persisted in both African American and Postcolonial Literary Studies: ~ a (0002) 0€ sowooupuio sapmia,p auua1poun> annay