Skip to content

End of Postcolonialism and the Challenge for ‘Non-European’ Thought

May 19, 2013

A lively debate has been going on lately in Al Jazeera, following the question posed by Hamid Dabashi in an article provocatively titled “Can Non-Europeans Think“? Dabashi’s piece, published earlier in January this year was a response to an article by Santiago Zabala, Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Barcelona. Zabala’s article, entitled “Slavoj Zizek and the Role of the Philosopher”, was actually on an entirely different issue, as will be evident from the title. Zabala attempts, in this article, to read in Zizek’s persona and oeuvre, the possible implications for the philosopher as such. He dwells on Zizek as a figure who is at once a philosopher and a public intellectual – a role not very easily available, according to him, to academic philosophers.

If most significant philosophers become points of reference within the philosophical community, he says, “few have managed to overcome its boundaries and become public intellectuals intensely engaged in our cultural and political life as did Hannah Arendt (with the Eichmann trial), Jean-Paul Sartre (in the protests of May 1968) and Michel Foucault (with the Iranian revolution).” Zabala explains this rare ability/ possibility by invoking Edward Said on the ‘outsider’ status of the intellectual and by underlining the direct engagement of the thought of such philosophers with contemporary events. He says:

These philosophers became public intellectuals not simply because of their original philosophical projects or the exceptional political events of their epochs, but rather because their thoughts were drawn by these events. But how can an intellectual respond to the events of his epoch in order to contribute in a productive manner?

In order to respond, as Edward Said once said, the intellectual has to be “an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society”, that is, free from academic, religious and political establishments; otherwise, he or she will simply submit to the inevitability of events.

Read the full essay here at Critical Encounters.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. May 20, 2013 9:34 PM

    Thank you for this, which is the first discussion of the subject that has, to me, offered the possibility of progress in addressing the issues raised by the authors and articles discussed here. Those were unsatisfactory to me, partly I feel sure because they were too close to the instigating problem, Zizek. To me, at least, it must be supremely difficult to think or write clearly while standing too close to Slavoj Zizek.

    I thank Aditya Nigam for getting us a few steps away, and giving me a much clearer view of the essential issues raised by an attempt to deal with SZ, but which are much broader and far reaching.

  2. Adnan R. Amin permalink
    May 20, 2013 9:57 PM

    Most interesting is the part where it says, and I paraphrase, there is a structural link between an imperial frame of reference and the (presumed) universality of a thinker hailing from that empire.
    It seems quite plausible that if the Chinese dominate the world for the next 200 years, people will end up thinking in Confucian (or other Chinese philosophical) terms. Regardless of whether China ostensibly colonizes the world or not. Its ‘Referent Power’.


  1. Chatterjee’s response to Chibber in EPW | Andy Davies's Blog

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71,910 other followers

%d bloggers like this: