4 ms·

> Much postcolonial thinking is the cultural equivalent of "Not Invented Here" syndrome. This is very much not true, and I'd invite you to read some postcoloni

> Much postcolonial thinking is the cultural equivalent of "Not Invented Here" syndrome. This is very much not true, and I'd invite you to read some postcolonial theory to understand why, because those primary sources explain it in more detail than I can summarize here. The remainder of your post after that line is factually true, and postcolonialists wouldn't even disagree with it necessarily, but that particular claim is not accurate.

rayiner 9y ago
I don't think it's controversial to say that postcolonialism rejects the universality of European enlightenment values. That is, in my view, a mode of "Not Invented Here" thinking. Relevant: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/04/how-does-the-subaltern-speak https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/04/how-does-the-subaltern-sp.... > There has been no really prominent body of thought associated with the Left in the last hundred and fifty years or so that has insisted on denying the scientific ethos and the applicability of categories coming out of the liberal enlightenment and the radical enlightenment — categories like capital, democracy, liberalism, rationality, and objectivity. There have been philosophers who have criticized these orientations, but they’ve rarely achieved any significant traction on the Left. Postcolonial theorists are the first to do so.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  Okay, now I understand the issue. It looks like you're reading a description of postcolonialism written by someone who's explicitly opposed to the school of thought and treating that as a primary reference on the tenets of the philosophy itself. If actually read the original essay with that title ("Can the Subaltern Speak?), you might see that Chibber's criticism is completely off-base, to the point of misrepresenting even objective facts about the principles of postcolonialism.

rayiner 9y ago

I don't think it's controversial to say that postcolonialism rejects the universality of European enlightenment values. That is, in my view, a mode of "Not Invented Here" thinking. Relevant: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/04/how-does-the-subaltern-speak https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/04/how-does-the-subaltern-sp.... > There has been no really prominent body of thought associated with the Left in the last hundred and fifty years or so that has insisted on denying the scientific ethos and the applicability of categories coming out of the liberal enlightenment and the radical enlightenment — categories like capital, democracy, liberalism, rationality, and objectivity. There have been philosophers who have criticized these orientations, but they’ve rarely achieved any significant traction on the Left. Postcolonial theorists are the first to do so.

chimeracoder 9y ago
Okay, now I understand the issue. It looks like you're reading a description of postcolonialism written by someone who's explicitly opposed to the school of thought and treating that as a primary reference on the tenets of the philosophy itself. If actually read the original essay with that title ("Can the Subaltern Speak?), you might see that Chibber's criticism is completely off-base, to the point of misrepresenting even objective facts about the principles of postcolonialism.