Identity, Text, Positioning: On Edward Said’s “Voyage in” as Politics of Resista

开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇Identity, Text, Positioning: On Edward Said’s “Voyage in” as Politics of Resista范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！

Abstract

Critics often accuse Orientalism of totalizing Orientalist discourse and failing to theorize resistance both within and outside it. Probably in response to this criticism， Edward Said proposes “voyage in” as a mode of resistance in Culture and Imperialism， which is defined as the conscious effort of Third World writers and critics to enter into and transform the dominant Western discourses so as to repatriate their marginalized histories. “Voyage in” cannot be simply regarded as “write back” or counterdiscourse； it actually covers three aspects of Said’s politics of resistance： how to construct ethnic or national identities and guard against identity politics， how to adopt and adapt the colonial discourse while being aware of its colonialist ideologies， and how to position Third World writers and critics within the Western metropolis. The paper aims to explore these problems through a systematic study on the textual and political implications of Said’s “voyage in” as politics of resistance. It argues that Said’s “voyage in” as politics of resistance constitutes the problematic： 1） it asserts counter-discourse as a mode of resistance without any explicit discussion of other issues involved， such as the construction of ethnic and national identities， the subjective agency of the colonized natives， the metropolitan location and positioning of Third World intellectuals； 2） it insists on holding a resisting position from within the power structures of metropolitan discursive and institutional practices， and valorizes the individual’s critical consciousness as the self-sufficient subjective agency immune from the constitutive effect of those practices for producing resistance； 3） it provides a potential mode of theorizing resistance that depends on both the hybrid nature of colonial discourse and the colonial subject’s agency embodied as critical consciousness.

Key words： edward said； “voyage in”； Resistance； politics of resistance

“Voyage in” as politics of resistance is different from“writing back”. It constitutes Said’s politics of resistance which involves four aspects： 1） it is characterized by critics or writers’ consciousness， which is in accordance with Said’s valorization of critical consciousness in his works； 2） it denies taking a straightforward opposition outside the operations of power by a simple reversal or rejection of colonial discourse， and stresses effecting resistance from within the dominant power structures by interrogating identitarian thoughts rather than seeking an essentialized pre-colonial identity； 3） how it appropriates and re-inscribes the dominant discourse and invests it with subversive intentions through adopting and adapting the colonial discourse in a new and creative way； 4） how it can make the West acknowledge the marginalized and suppressed histories even one is situated within the discursive， institutional practices and power structures of the metropolitan center， i.e.， how can those “voyage in”writers and intellectuals position themselves in articulating counter-discourses in the metropolis.

Some scholars have discussed Said’s “voyage in”in light of resistance. Ahmad refutes “voyage in” as an effective means of resistance because it conceptualizes“the ‘Western centre’ as the only site where ‘contests over decolonization’ can now take place” and ignores issues of class origin， social and geographical location. He thinks that， far from producing resistance， these “voyage in”writers become “part of the ‘center’” and thus complicit with the dominant power structures （1992， p. 196）.1 Bruce Robbins， disagreeing with Ahmad， Dirlik， and Appiah， argues that Said’s upward mobility is a necessary means of postcolonial intellectuals to gain counterauthority to“speak truth to power”： “National origin matters； transfers from the periphery to the center do not leave the center as it was. The transnational story of upward mobility is not just a claiming of authority but a redefinition of authority， and a redefinition that can have many beneficiaries， for it means a recomposition as well as a redistribution of cultural capital.” （1994a， pp. 28-30， 32）.2 In a similar vein， agreeing with Robbins， Valerie Kennedy （2000， pp. 148-149） considers Said’s “voyage in” as “a strategic choice of position， allowing him the possibilities of both intervention and distance.” Peter Childs and Patrick Williams （1997）， disagreeing with those who criticize Said’s neglect of native agency and indigenous resistance， provide an introductory analysis of Said’s resistance in terms of his distancing from Foucault in Culture and Imperialism. They argue that Said’s discussion of resistance remains largely untheorized because he fails to“provide any theoretical analysis of， or grounding for， an understanding of where agency as resistance originates， or how it functions” and leave the task of theorizing resistance to others （1997， p. 111）.

This paper aims to explicate Said’s “voyage in” from three aspects： 1） how does it question the straightforward opposition in a simple reversal of colonial relationship and propose internal resistance by a secular interrogation of identitarian thoughts； 2） how does it appropriate and re-inscribe the dominant discourse with a new subversive intention； 3） how do “voyage in” intellectuals make the West acknowledge the marginalized histories even they are implicated within the Western discursive and institutional power structures. It firstly examines Said’s critique of identity politics and his elaboration of liberation， then analyzes the problematic nature of textual re-inscription， and finally presents a critique of his metropolitan location and consequent ambivalent positioning.

Construction of an integrated identity by the colonized has played an important part in the decolonization movement for national independence. However， identity politics has been criticized since the day of its emergence. Said’s “voyage in” as politics of resistance firstly takes its itinerary from a critique of identitarian thoughts like nativism and nationalism toward elaboration of liberation in imagining a non-coercive human community.3 It attempts to propose a problematic form of resistance， which attempts to be both intellectually detached， selfcritical and politically operative on collective grounds.

It shares with magic and with mythology the self-containing， self-reinforcing character of a closed system， in which objects are what they are because they are what they are， for once， for all time， for ontological reasons that no empirical material can either dislodge or alter. （1978， p. 70）

What this critique aims to demonstrate here is that Orientalism， as a form of essentialist thoughts， produces its representation of the Orient in terms of unchangeable stereotypes and reductive categories. This essentialist conception of the Orient ascribes a fixed property or essence as universally valid to its culture and people. In other words， the imposed arbitrary distinctions made between peoples and cultures produce distorted images and stereotyped conceptions， which are repeatedly employed and consequently reinforced by institutional power structures. As strategies of resistance， it is natural that a frequently used means to counter the colonialist or imperialist misrepresentations is to construct a positive collective identity in both historical and cultural terms. However， constructing positive collective identities might run the risk of attempting to retrieve an essentialized， pure ethnic identity supposed to be located in the distant native past. Critique of identitarian thoughts constitutes the first step of Said’s elaboration of “voyage in” as politics of resistance because it denies resistance simply as strategies of constructing a pure native identity to oppose a monolithic Western identity.

Said keeps vigilance against the trend that nationalism might extend to be fundamentalism and nativism. When commenting on William Butler Yeats he makes a direct critique of nativism：

This it seems to me was always the case in every colonial relationship， because it is the first principle that a clear-cut and absolute hierarchical distinction should remain constant between ruler and ruled， whether or not the latter is white. Nativism， alas， reinforces the distinction made even while revaluating the weaker or subservient partner. And it has often led to compelling but demagogic assertions about a nativist past， narrative or actuality that stands free from worldly times itself. （1993， p. 228）

An easy acceptance of the nativist construction of ethnic or national identity reproduces and reinforces the consequences of imperialism and its imposition of the racial and political divisions.4 Therefore an essentialist assertion of the distant pre-colonial native past as a foundation for producing anti-colonial resistance is dangerous. As Said continues to emphasize：

To leave the historical world for the metaphysics of essences like negritude， Irishness， Islam， or Catholicism is to abandon history for essentializations that have the power to turn human beings against each other； often his abandonment of the secular world has led to a sort of millenarianism if the movement has had a mass base， or it has degenerated into small-scale private craziness， or into an unthinking acceptance of stereotypes， myths， animosities， and traditions encouraged by imperialism. Such programs are hardly what great resistance movements had imagined as their goals. （1993， pp. 228-229）

This passage indicates that the construction of an essentialized identity to counter the colonialist reductive categories and stereotypes of native people and culture cannot necessarily play a positive role in resistance movements， because it abandons the secular and historical world in which it is produced and consequently acquires a theological nature in its easy acceptance of the myths and stereotypes imposed by colonialism. Therefore， Said’s critique of identity politics consists of a critique of the Western conceptions of the Orient on the one hand and a secular interrogation of the essentialist construction of ethnic or national identities in resistance movements on the other.

Therefore， to address such issues， it seems to me that you need a secular and human vision， one based on the idea of human history not being the result of divine intervention but a much slower process than the politics of identity usually allow. […] Correlatively， we now have this reactive Occidentalism， some people saying the West is monolithically the same， opposed to us， degraded， secular， bad， etc. The politics of secular interpretation proposes a way of dealing with that problem， a way of avoiding the pitfalls of nationalism I’ve just outlined， by discriminating between the different “Easts” and “Wests，” how differently they were made， maintained， and so on. （Sprinker， 1992， pp. 232-233）

This demonstrates the intellectual as well as the political limitations nationalism as essentialist， identitarian thoughts entails in politics of resistance. The religious sentiment produced in constructing national identity as a fetish denies the very secular nature of human history. In other words， nationalist idealization of a unified， monolithic pre-colonial identity is suspicious of becoming a “token of submerged feelings of identity， of tribal solidarity” （ibid.， p. 232）. So the tragedy of nationalism， in its conception of a geographically and homogeneously defined identity， falls into theologically homogenized unities or what Benedict Anderson calls “imagined communities” （ibid.， p. 15）.6 According to Said’s politics of secular interpretation， the complex human life cannot be categorized into “the rubric of national identity” or“made entirely to this phony idea of a paranoid frontier separating ‘us’ from ‘them’” （ibid.， p. 233）.

Elsewhere， Said employs the concept of secularity to discuss politics of identity， especially in his political writings on Palestine and the Middle East. For example， in Covering Islam， he suggests：

Neither of the two necessary conditions for knowing another culture uncoercive contact with an alien culture through real exchange， and self-consciousness about the interpretive project itself is present， and this absence enforces the solitude， the provinciality， and the circularity of covering Islam. Significantly， these things also make it evident that covering Islam is not interpretation in the genuine sense but an assertion of power.（1981， p. 142） Here Said implies that， despite his critique of identitarian thoughts， there is still a possibility of knowing other cultures through uncoercive contact and conscious interpretation without negating the knowledge of other cultures， which are usually considered as separate and homogenous entities.

Politics of interpretation are always involved with affiliative situations， which depend on the willed intentional activity of the interpreter in specific time and place. But how can people cross barriers of the different situations of interpretation？ Said suggests：

Thus the self-consciously willed effort to cross cultural boundaries to understand other cultures and societies constitutes Said’s critical consciousness in imagining an alternative way out of the notion of enclosed systems of cultural identity-formation. This further takes us to Said’s question in Orientalism：

How does one represent other cultures？ What is another culture？ Is the notion of a distinct culture （or race， or religion， or civilization） a useful one， or does it always get involved either in self-congratulation （when one discusses one’s own） or hostility and aggression （when one discusses the “other”）？ Do cultural， religious， and racial differences matter more than socioeconomic categories， or politicohistorical ones？ How do ideas acquire authority， “normality”， and even the status of “natural”truth？ What is the role of the intellectual？ Is he there to validate the culture and state of which he is a part？ What importance must he give to an independent critical consciousness， an oppositional consciousness？ （1978， pp. 325-326）

The series of questions is a demonstration of Said’s lifelong concern with the problem of identity-formation in representing other cultures and the role of intellectuals in the production and circulation of cultural representations. Following these important questions， he strives to provide possible solutions：

Modern thought and experience have taught us to be sensitive to what is involved in representation， in studying the Other， in racial thinking， in unthinking and uncritical acceptance of authority and authoritative ideas， in the socio-political role of intellectuals， in the great value of a skeptical critical consciousness. […] Perhaps too we should remember that the study of man in society is based on concrete human history and experience， not on donnish abstractions， or on obscure laws or arbitrary systems. （ibid.， p. 328）

According to this explanation， the Orient is constituted within heterogeneous realities of geographical， religious， cultural， and racial differences. Therefore the essentialized conception of an inherent and coherent Oriental identity will ensue serious consequences in its reproduction of an orientalized Orient. Furthermore， because of the internal differences of the Orient， even the Oriental people cannot claim a privileged insider position to represent themselves because it constitutes an exclusive politics of identity.7 Here Said’s critique is valid to some extent in its attempt to assert the commensurability of different civilizations， but it fails to consider its otherwise implications for the actual politics of resistance. For the dominant cultures the notion of a weakened sense of ethnic or national feelings might become a useful means for justifying their assimilation or even manipulation of minority cultures. Nevertheless， for the Third World or minority cultures the search for a unified national or ethnic identity still remains an important strategy to resist the absorption by those economically and technologically advanced nations and cultures. In this respect， Said’s active involvement with and steadfast commitment to the Palestinian nationalist politics attested by his large amount of political writings on the Middle East constitutes a paradox of his critique of identity politics.

Despite his thoroughgoing critique of identitarian thoughts such as nativism or nationalism， Said always acknowledges the positive role they have played in the decolonization movement for national independence. For example， in Culture and Imperialism he concedes that：

In other words， the emergence of nationalism as assertions of national identity can be positively seen as an active response to colonialist and imperialist encroachment. The assertion of identity is supposed to carry the whole implications of cultural and political work in the early phases of nationalist struggle against the European colonial invasion and imperial conquest.8