The modern world in Edward Said's articulation is "the age of the refugee" - the processes of imperialism and totalitarianism, and the creation of 'total war' with all its destruction has left behind a legacy of displaced people that loiter across the globe. Postmodernists claim that the specificity of modernity lies in the sheer scale of fragmentation it creates. While certain contemporary scholarship embraces and rejoices in this fragmentation, it is in the cases of imperialism and exile that we encounter the effect of such human phenomena on the human - of the way in which a universal fragmentation impacts the particular. In his essay, "Reflections on Exile," Said calls to question the way dominant discourse views exile - at times humanising the process, by underscoring the positives of exile; and at other times, dehumanising the exilic figure by making him a faceless statistic in the hands of impersonal bureaucracies. The purpose here is to analyse Said's work through a reflection on the two processes of imperialism and exile, which will be done in two ways - firstly, by discussing the manner in which imperialism contains an inherent exile of the colonised and, secondly, by arguing that the condition of imperialism breeds a certain type of nationalism through exile.
Describing exile, Said calls it a "condition legislated to deny dignity - to deny an identity to people" (173). The concept of exile, he claims, originates with the ancient practise of banishment that carried with it the stigma of being an outsider. Exilic figures are, hence, made to feel the difference between themselves and those that continue to inhabit the homeland. According to Said, then, exile is "life outside the habitual order" (186) but one which is predicated on the bond between the exilic figure and his native place. In my opinion, it is the severance of this connection with a native place and space that is replicated in the case of imperialism. For the colonised, the connection to land is of supreme importance as it is felt to be the provider of bread and dignity - things the ruled are deprived of in the imperial world. The coloniser sets himself apart from the native through exclusion, by banishing him to an inferior status, by Otherizing him and creating fundamental differences between himself and the Other - differences that are crucial in deciding that the native does not have the ability to govern his own land. The severance with the connection to land is not, in my opinion, only prevalent in the case of the Muslims in the British ruled Indian subcontinent but is symptomatic of imperialism, in general. There is an understanding in imperial discourse that the colonised, for whatever reason, is unable and incapable of ruling over his own land and, hence, is in need of guidance provided by the coloniser. In a certain sense, therefore, imperialism is predicated on an exile of the native from his own land - by depriving him of a connection with place through discourses of his incapability to rule, the coloniser conceptually exiles the colonised. In a similar vein, we find an exclusionary attitude within the concept of the nation-state which draws up boundaries to exclude those on the other side of the border. By sacralizing the connection with place, nationalisms which sprung out during decolonisation movements placed the notion of retaking ones land on a pedestal. Having felt exile in the colony, these figures wished to eliminate all possibility of future exclusion which, ironically, is achieved through exclusion via boundary lines. According to Said, the figure of the exile is the one that lies outside these boundaries. My claim is that the figure of exile conceptually represents a continuation of the exclusion that was first felt in imperialism. Imperialism is thus, the trigger, where exclusion is first established, and nationalism, where this exclusion becomes institutionalised, is the full blown impact of the bullet.
From a macrocosmic viewpoint of all these historical processes, it seems to me that Simon Weil's contention of rootedness being the "most important and least recognised need of the human soul" becomes problematic because this "need" appears to be fabricated through these very processes. It is because of this that I argue that imperialism creates nationalism through exile. Imperialism, according to Frantz Fanon, is based on a division of the world between the colonialist and colonised sectors in a way which makes conciliation between the two sectors an impossibility. In The Wretched of the Earth, he argues that the coloniser's world is built to last whereas the colonised sector is a "disreputable place inhabited by disreputable people" (4). This, I find, to be a situation that parallels the relationship between exile and the nation-state, as explicated by Said in his essay - the coloniser's world, with its fortifications of steel, represents the nation-state, untouchable because of its monopoly over violence; whereas the colonised world, a space of those exiled from ownership of their own land, parallels the condition of those exiled from the nation-state. Conceptually, it is not a coincidence that such a parallel exists - imperialism, being predicated on the banishment of the natives, sets the ground for future nationalistic movements which are based on a desire for reclaiming the ownership over a certain space. Through the exilic nature of imperialism, therefore, it sets the path for its own destruction that is epitomised through decolonisation via nationalistic movements.
Exile, for Said, is the antecedent for any nationalism, embodied in the conception of the nation-state. I have attempted to argue that this exile is inherently present in imperialism and, therefore, the relationship between imperialism and exile is akin to the problematic and complex connection between nationalism and exile, described by Said.
Describing exile, Said calls it a "condition legislated to deny dignity - to deny an identity to people" (173). The concept of exile, he claims, originates with the ancient practise of banishment that carried with it the stigma of being an outsider. Exilic figures are, hence, made to feel the difference between themselves and those that continue to inhabit the homeland. According to Said, then, exile is "life outside the habitual order" (186) but one which is predicated on the bond between the exilic figure and his native place. In my opinion, it is the severance of this connection with a native place and space that is replicated in the case of imperialism. For the colonised, the connection to land is of supreme importance as it is felt to be the provider of bread and dignity - things the ruled are deprived of in the imperial world. The coloniser sets himself apart from the native through exclusion, by banishing him to an inferior status, by Otherizing him and creating fundamental differences between himself and the Other - differences that are crucial in deciding that the native does not have the ability to govern his own land. The severance with the connection to land is not, in my opinion, only prevalent in the case of the Muslims in the British ruled Indian subcontinent but is symptomatic of imperialism, in general. There is an understanding in imperial discourse that the colonised, for whatever reason, is unable and incapable of ruling over his own land and, hence, is in need of guidance provided by the coloniser. In a certain sense, therefore, imperialism is predicated on an exile of the native from his own land - by depriving him of a connection with place through discourses of his incapability to rule, the coloniser conceptually exiles the colonised. In a similar vein, we find an exclusionary attitude within the concept of the nation-state which draws up boundaries to exclude those on the other side of the border. By sacralizing the connection with place, nationalisms which sprung out during decolonisation movements placed the notion of retaking ones land on a pedestal. Having felt exile in the colony, these figures wished to eliminate all possibility of future exclusion which, ironically, is achieved through exclusion via boundary lines. According to Said, the figure of the exile is the one that lies outside these boundaries. My claim is that the figure of exile conceptually represents a continuation of the exclusion that was first felt in imperialism. Imperialism is thus, the trigger, where exclusion is first established, and nationalism, where this exclusion becomes institutionalised, is the full blown impact of the bullet.
From a macrocosmic viewpoint of all these historical processes, it seems to me that Simon Weil's contention of rootedness being the "most important and least recognised need of the human soul" becomes problematic because this "need" appears to be fabricated through these very processes. It is because of this that I argue that imperialism creates nationalism through exile. Imperialism, according to Frantz Fanon, is based on a division of the world between the colonialist and colonised sectors in a way which makes conciliation between the two sectors an impossibility. In The Wretched of the Earth, he argues that the coloniser's world is built to last whereas the colonised sector is a "disreputable place inhabited by disreputable people" (4). This, I find, to be a situation that parallels the relationship between exile and the nation-state, as explicated by Said in his essay - the coloniser's world, with its fortifications of steel, represents the nation-state, untouchable because of its monopoly over violence; whereas the colonised world, a space of those exiled from ownership of their own land, parallels the condition of those exiled from the nation-state. Conceptually, it is not a coincidence that such a parallel exists - imperialism, being predicated on the banishment of the natives, sets the ground for future nationalistic movements which are based on a desire for reclaiming the ownership over a certain space. Through the exilic nature of imperialism, therefore, it sets the path for its own destruction that is epitomised through decolonisation via nationalistic movements.
Exile, for Said, is the antecedent for any nationalism, embodied in the conception of the nation-state. I have attempted to argue that this exile is inherently present in imperialism and, therefore, the relationship between imperialism and exile is akin to the problematic and complex connection between nationalism and exile, described by Said.
No comments:
Post a Comment