Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latin American Research Review.
http://www.jstor.org
HernanVidal
ofMinnesota
University
Periodically,
LatinAmericanliterarycriticismdiscusses new themes
that,on reachingsome degree of generalization,indicatepossible direc-
tionsforlonger-term research.For example,a concernhas emergedlately
about definingand applying the termpostmodernism to Latin American
symbolicproduction.In essence, promotingthesediscussionsmeans creat-
ing intellectualevents that tacitlypromise to introducenew theoretical
and methodologicaldimensions to our field,perhaps generatingstudies
thatmay enrichit. Hence, reflectingon the way in which these labels are
adopted ought to be a matterof professionalresponsibility.Years ago we
saw the effortsand resources spent on transferring the termmagicalreal-
ismfrompaintingto literarycriticismand its meager legacy.Today seems
to be the turnofcolonialand postcolonialdiscourse.Discussing this concept
takes on special importancein the currentcircumstances,when we as
intellectualsfindourselves caught up in a double crisis. On one hand is
the crisisaffectingthe status of literatureas an institutionand academic
literarycriticismas a profession.On the otherhand, we must face up
withoutexcuses to the extremeviolence generatedby neoliberalcapital-
ism and the political vacuum leftby the collapse of the socialist bloc.
Hence the acknowledged eclipse or waning of the narrativesof human
113
114
115
116
In reflecting
on thelinguistic
framework inwhichthepoliticsofcolonialrulehave
beenelaborated, writers haveobservedthelimitations ofEuropeanpoliticaldis-
coursesas well as the way in whichthe polysemiccharacterof languagehas
enablednativesof colonizedterritories to appropriateand transformthecolo-
nizers'discourses.A relatedcritique
ofthelanguageofindependence movements
and postcolonialnationalism, referredto as postcolonialdiscourse,has been
examining howpopulardiscourses, highliterature,
and politicalpamphleteering
haveallconstructed anticolonialand nationalist
vocabularies.
(P. 183)
Startingwiththetechnicalconcerns,Seed establishesthepoliticalagenda
of these works that deconstructcolonial discourse: "The aim of the cri-
tique in each of these disciplines is different-economicrelationsof au-
thority,culturalrelationsof authority(the canon), conventionalpolitical
relationsof authority.But the basic targetof critiqueremains the same-
therelationsofauthorityin colonial and postcolonialstates-and itis thus
an enterpriseofculturaland politicalcriticismbeing carriedout in a reso-
lutelypostcolonialera" (p. 200).
The unificationoftermsI referto can be seen when thetrajectoryof
technicallyoriented renovationfinallyresults in a political concern, as
describedby Seed. Yet it would be necessary to dispel many doubts on
this score. For example, Seed names only one literarycriticwithin the
groupofworksthatshe examines. Certainlyone case alone is notenough
to founda "movement"in thisdiscipline.Nevertheless,ifher description
is correctand reallyinvolvesa more significantnumberofliterarycritics,
perhaps the categoryof "colonial and postcolonial discourse" signals the
entranceinto culturalcriticismof a sectorof researcherswho previously
were characterizedby excludingthe political.The rapprochementofboth
groups could contributepositivelyto a certaincontinuityofeffortswitha
paradigmaticsemblance. Nevertheless,it is necessary to raise two objec-
tionsto themannerin which Seed argues thisseeminglynew category.
The firstobjection has to do with the perspective in which this
unificationis visualized. Given thatit is being conceived of as a technical
innovation,such unificationconveys the image characteristicof techno-
craticliterarycriticism:the presumptionthat when a new analyticand
interpretiveapproach is being introduced,the accumulation of similar
effortsin thepast is leftsuperseded and nullified.The past as inescapable
factseems to riseup again, supposedly out ofnothingnessand disguised
in a new jargon. This idea of the obsolescence of the past is suggested in
two keypassages in theconclusionof Seed's review essay:
117
118
19