Based on Edward Said’s characterization of colonialist
thought in Orientalism and Matthew
Liebmann’s definitions of postcolonialism in the introductory chapter of Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique,
the primary difference to me between these two paradigms is the tendency to
dichotomize versus hybridize the cultures of colonizer and colonized.
According
to Said, encounters of Western colonists with “the Orient,” which he defines in
this book as India and the Levant, caused them to assert their distinctive
Western-ness. Of course, the distinction of “Western” is vague and arbitrary
and, by definition, can only be made relationally; something/someone can only
be “Western” with respect to something/someone else. Therefore, “the Orient” is
a concept developed by Western colonists as a foil for themselves. It existed
only as an Other by which they could define the Self. Orientalism as a field of
study, then, is problematic not only because of the outright racism expressed
in some of the literature, but because it is inherently Eurocentric. Indian and
Levantine cultures are studied as a means by which “the West” can be understood
rather than as an end in of themselves. Said expresses the positive feedback
cycle that dichotomization initiates:
When
one uses categories like Oriental and Western as both the starting and
the
end points of analysis, research, public policy…the result is usually to
polarize
the distinction – the Oriental becomes more Oriental, the Westerner
more
Western – and limit the human encounter between different cultures,
traditions
and societies (45-6).
However,
the act of colonizing did the exact opposite; rather than isolating the
cultures of “East” and “West,” it brought them into constant contact. To me, refutation
of this binary in favor of cultural interaction is one of the most important contributions
of postcolonalism. Liebmann identifies this “investigation of hybridity in the
constitution of postcolonial cultural formations” as one of the three major
tenets of this theoretical framework (4). I am interested in how the
archaeological record can be used to explore this notion of hybridity, which
Liebmann defines as “the new, transcultural forms produced through colonization
that cannot be neatly classified into a single cultural or ethnic category”
(5). Thus, the whole is greater than the some of its parts and, as Liebmann
emphasizes, these parts can be in constant conflict, resulting in instances of
anticolonial resistance.
A
zooarchaeological study I am currently working on can be used as one lens
through which hybridity can be identified archaeologically. The site of Dixon,
New Mexico was first occupied by the Spanish in 1725; however, it had been
inhabited by the Tiwa people for centuries prior to European arrival. The
entire assemblage is believed to date from the post-colonial period, and yet
there is evidence of traditional indigenous hunting techniques occurring
contemporaneously with traditionally European domesticates such as sheep, goat,
cattle and pig. It is unclear whether or not the coexistence of these two
distinct subsistence strategies is due to Spanish appropriation of indigenous
techniques, indigenous appropriation of Spanish domestication, or cohabitation,
as all have seemingly occurred at other Spanish colonial sites in the area;
likely, it is a combination of the three. Regardless, each is a form of
hybridity that can be explored within a postcolonial theoretical framework.
This
is just one of the many ways in which archaeology can be used in combination
with postcolonial theory to identify instances of hybridity and reconstruct the
history of colonization in a non-binary fashion. In fact, in the second chapter
of Archaeology and the Postcolonial
Critique, Liebmann identifies additional material examples of hybridity
from the Spanish colonial Southwest, focusing on the fusion of Catholicism with
Puebloan traditions. All of these remarkable histories of confluence and
conflict, much more interesting and varied than the colonial “East” versus “West”
archetype, would be missed if not for the rejection of these binaries by
postcolonial theory.
References:
Liebmann, M. and Rizvi, U. Z., eds. 2008. Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique. Lanham, MD:
AltaMira Press.
Said, E. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Random House.
No comments:
Post a Comment