In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures

by Aijaz Ahmad

After the Second World War, nationalism emerged as the principle expression of resistance to Western imperialism in a variety of regions from the Indian subcontinent to Africa, to parts of Latin America and the Pacific Rim. With the Bandung Conference and the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, many of Europe’s former colonies banded together to form a common bloc, aligned with neither the advanced capitalist “First World” nor with the socialist “Second World.” In this historical context, the category of “Third World literature” emerged, a category that has itself spawned a whole industry of scholarly and critical studies, particularly in the metropolitan West, but increasingly in the homelands of the Third World itself.

Setting himself against the growing tendency to homogenize “Third World” literature and cultures, Aijaz Ahmad has produced a spirited critique of the major theoretical statements on “colonial discourse” and “post-colonialism,” dismantling many of the commonplaces and conceits that dominate contemporary cultural criticism. With lengthy considerations of, among others, Fredric Jameson, Edward Said, and the Subaltern Studies group, In Theory also contains brilliant analyses of the concept of Indian literature, of the genealogy of the term “Third World,” and of the conditions under which so-called “colonial discourse theory” emerged in metropolitan intellectual circles.

Erudite and lucid, Ahmad’s remapping of the terrain of cultural theory is certain to provoke passionate response.

Genres: Theory, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, History, Literature, Academic

364 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

Aijaz Ahmad is a renowned cultural theorist who has taught in several western and Indian universities. A frequent contributor to Frontline magazine, he currently lives in New Delhi.

Reviews

[Karlo Mikhail · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite what seems to be a rehash of Kautsky's ultra-imperialist thesis, the book provides engaging and persuasive Marxist critiques of Edward Said, Fredric Jameson, Theory of Forces of Production-inspired "Third World" Theory, different strands of postmodern and postcolonial theories, and postcolonial literary canon (particularly Rushdie).

[Arsh · Rating 5 out of 5]

First published in 1992 immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union, 'In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures' by Aizaj Ahmad takes up the national question at a world historic moment where governments negotiate at the cusp of a global geo-political reordering of allegiances. The political impetus provided by the establishment of State Socialism, first in USSR and then in China provided the crucial reinforcement needed for the spine of a global anti-imperialist wave which witnessed the liberation of Vietnam, the spread of revolutionary energies into Cuba, the decolonization of much of Africa and the cementing of Eastern Europe into a Socialist bastion - largely enabled by economic, military and technological aid from the first two countries to have harboured Proletarian Revolutions.

In such a scene, which unmistakably bears the grief of what appears to be the failure of what we now call 20th century socialism - Ahmad takes up the properly Leninist task, to begin from the beginning again! Yet a beginning which is located immanently within the political and institutional moorings of criticism and literature produced in the sub-continent. Painstakingly tracing the deployment and function of the English language which was introduced by the Colonial Raj in its drive to create a class of intermediary officials between its offices and the masses, to it's following professionalisation as a language which granted access to the knowledge of scientific advancements made in the rest of the world. The inherent schizophrenia of a language which is used for professional purposes yet doesn't embody the emotive lives of its speakers is brought to bear in the course of it's multifaceted expressions in the early years of the establishment of Literature departments which taught English.

From such stunted origins Ahmad attempts to bring forth some of the ways in which it may be possible to periodize these changes within the broader historiography of the Nationalist struggle and highlights the forms of inter-cultural transmission made possible by the work of transalation which were internationally coallecing into the body of literature available in English. From our perspective, this period today is intimately marked by what we in a Post-Colonial world call 'Orientalism', conceptually popularized by Edward Said and infamously remembered in adages of Macauley's minute which no longer warrants recounting. Yet what is acutely picked up is the very opposite movement, of the immense translations into European languages of Indian texts by scholars from the 'first world'. The extensive investigations in Indology for example are also initiated in this period which harbored the translation of the Uppanishads.

Politically, the renowned American Marxist literary critic, Fredric Jameson had just suggested 'National Allegory' as the predominant form of narrative produced in the 3rd world, and this being their narratorial signature which distinguishes it from other narratives. Here Ahmad tries to point out the largely polemical content of the category 'third world' and seeks to reintroduce the gap between the schemata of narratorial structure and the order in which different parts of the globe were industrialized.

Along the way, he takes up the cause of Rushdie and the politics of his persecution and investigates the political dramaturgy of Nehru in his addressal at the Bandung conference. A negotiation clearly directed both inside his own party, the Congress which way wary of his socialist leanings and to the Communist movement in India which had not yet been elected in Kerela. The model of such mediatory addressal within the nation was however delivered at an international summit, and Ahmad uses this as an analogy to describe how centrist forces such as Nehru, Nasser and Sukarno negotiated with the communist and socialist movements in their own countries while steering the Non-Aligned movement into what it becomes.

I'd highly recommend it for literature, history and philosophy students and even for scholars investigating the period in question from sociology or political science. It is also perhaps the most comprehensive account of the political impetuses of the literature produced in that time for a casually interest reader.

At the end of this however, I must also convey that I am told by an old prof of mine that Ahmad's reading of Marx is wrong though he hasn't really specified how so :/ ...till i know more about that to adequately comment.

[Mostly on Storygraph · Rating 4 out of 5]

A defense for Marxism as a more effective political alternative for poststructuralism. Oddly there were times when I couldn't put this book down, and a couple parts made me laugh out loud. I guess I'm a fan of the angry theorists.

[Tariq Almubarak · Rating 4 out of 5]

نقد جيد لافكار ادوارد سعيد في الاستشراق في اطار نقد اعجاز احمد لمدرسة مابعد الكولونيالية وبخاصة رؤية سعيد للابستيم الغربي، وللتحولات اللاحقة له بعد الاستشراق ، وايضا نقدا لتصور بعض الانتلجنسيا العالمثالثية التي تصور نفسها كطليعه نقلت الصراع مع المركز الغربي لمواقع متقدمة داخله

[Mazen · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب يحتوي علي فصل مهم جدًا نقد كتاب " الاستشراق " لإدوارد سعيد هو أفضل ما قرأت.

[Owen Hatherley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Best known for its takedown of Said's 'Orientalism', this is a book of mostly very acute essays on the radical or pseudoradical academic fashions of the 70s-90s, from a sophisticated and strident Marxist perspective. Sometimes marred by what seems to be a belief that writing theory, or literary criticism (or novels for that matter) for its own sake is an evasion of the struggle, and often unfair, particularly on Said (though very good both on the anachronisms in 'Orientalism' and the importance of class in academic flexing) it nonetheless says some currently often unsayable things with considerable authority.

[Abdullah Mirza · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even if this book didn't convince me to become a full-on Marxist, it gave me a deep appreciation for the possibilities of Marxist literary criticism. Here he uses it to give a succinct, penetrating critiques of Rushdie, Said, and Jameson.

[Derek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Read it. Especially if you feel you have any stake in "the left" and communism broadly speaking. Read it if you've read Said, and especially if you've read Orientalism. Some of the stuff will be less useful for some folks. The chapter on the problems of conceptualizing "Indian literature" for instance will certainly have a select audience in mind, namely those well versed enough in the topic, broadly speaking, to adequately engage with Ahmad's contentions (something I have no place doing). Other parts of the work are so fundamentally pertinent, it's hard to believe this was written two and half decades ago. The left and academia, and especially the left *in* academia, needs to revisit Ahmad. We have a lot to learn.

[Ivan Labayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

read this before you fall too much in love with said and bhabha and all those

[Kristine · Rating 4 out of 5]

❕🤔👊🌶️

[Mariam Rawwas · Rating 4 out of 5]

In many ways, Ahmad is a standard Marxist, insisting that class is "determinate in the last instance." His critique of postcolonialism is that more relevant for analysis is not the colonial condition as such, but rather the forces of communism or anti-communism present in the postcolonial condition: whether a national comprador class has been established or whether true liberation is at hand. He offers a critique of the category of "Third World Literature" by noting that the West still has ultimate control over what gets canonized as such, and that constraints still remain (writing in English or being readily translated, for example) over this selection process. He challenges Homi Bhabha's reaping the benefits of modernity while simultaneously critiquing it, noting the class position of such a figure of the postcolonial intellectual, and pleads for an attentiveness to the class realities underlying migration instead of its deployment as a literary, existential trope, though his dismissal of "poststructuralism" can often feel like a strawman, especially in his deployment of such figures as Derrida. He takes issue with Jameson nominating all Third World Literature as necessarily functioning as a "national allegory," questioning the validity or usefulness of the "Third World" as a category in and of itself. I really appreciated the chapter on Rushdie, where Ahmad takes him to task through a careful reading of Shame, noting the Islamophobia of his treatment of Pakistan throughout his work, as well as his failed attempts at feminism, reducing women to the role of agentless victims that brings to light his underlying misogyny. Ahmad also zeroes in on the ambivalence of Saïd's work, especially Orientalism, for its Foucauldian lineage, and for its Orientalism - the way it flips the narrative on the West by subjecting it to the same epistemological framework that it itself applies to the Orient. He also challenges Saïd's dismissal of Marx as Orientalist through a more sustained treatment of Marx's writings on India. The work does come off factionalist at times - one can see Derrida's charge of "proprietorial[ism]" (quoting Spivak) as regards Marx in his essay "Marx and Sons" in response to responses to his Specters of Marx, which included Ahmad's critique - but I simultaneously do find it proper in its analysis and thought-provoking in its polemics.

[Raya Al-Raddadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

يجمع اعجاز احمد في هذا الكتاب مجموعة مقالات مختلفة تهدف إلى "كسر البنية النظرية الحالية" فيما يخص نقاشات الامبريالية والاستعمار. يتحدث الكاتب عن مجالات مختلفة مثل تحليل الخطاب الاستعمار والنظريات المختصة بالعالم الثالث ومايسمى "بأدب العالم الثالث." في أحد أكثر مقالات الكتاب طولاً يقدم اعجاز أحمد نقداً عميقاً لإدوارد سعيد ومفهومة للاستشراق ومواطن الخلل في مفهوم سعيد للابستمولوجيا الغربية، ويخصص الفصل الذي يليه ليفند اتهام سعيد لماركس بالاستشراق فيما يخص رأيه بالهند. يطرح الكتاب في الفصل الذي يتحدث فيه عن سلمان رشدي وروايته "العار" الكثير من الأفكار التي سادت مؤخراً بين الكتاب النخبة مثل التصور المابعد الحداثي للهجرة والمنفى، ويناقش التناقض بين إدعاءات رشدي لكونه راديكالي وبين نوع السياسة التي يعرضها في رواياته .

[Frank Keizer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had ik dit tien, of zelfs vijf jaar geleden maar gelezen. Briljante marxistische kritiek van de manier waarop kolonialisme en postkolonialisme in het spoor van Edward Said getheoretiseerd zijn: als literaire discoursen in plaats van als materiële structuren. Daardoor zijn ons veel politieke perspectieven ontnomen om onze werkelijkheid, die ook vandaag de dag nog getekend wordt door koloniale uitbuiting en extractie, te veranderen.

[Arnab Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Revolutionary ideas all compressed in a book.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent analysis of Ahmad: postmodernism and poststructuralism cover indeed the class struggle that undeniably has been occurring since the XIX century.

[Leonardo]

Aijaz Ahmad apunta que las descripciones que Marx efectúa de la historia de la India parecen haber sido tomadas directamente de Hegel. Ver Ahíjas Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures (London: Verso, 1992), pp. 231 y 241.

[Imperio|12466868] Pág.94

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good!

[Scott Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh, interesting enough I guess. But not really what I need for school. More of a Marxist criticism on Said and on literary theory in general.

[Pauline McGonagle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I go back to this regularly and it helped me entangle some of the complications of the 'umbrella' of Indian literature in English.

[Ketaki Deshpande · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant!

[Chris Tempel · Rating 5 out of 5]

convincing.