Recalling Lost Memories: Deconstruction, Decolonization and Black Slavery
I think the most unpopular thing a person can ask if any Philosopher and their philosophy is: why should I care￼?
It is so unfashionable to question authority that we have to start reading Commentaries about particularly postmodern Philosopher’s but 20th century Philosopher’s in general,and especially critical theorists and ask if they are not understanding the authors they read.
It is interesting this essay that I linked to here because for sure it makes sense and it has a particularly kind of academic flavor that I’m sure will get people careers. And, yes I like his introduction about how deconstruction is not a thing in itself, not an activity that one extends. ￼But also I think for sure then we must ask if even the postmodern writers knew what the hell they were talking about, or if they were involved in a colonialist propaganda themselves. In particular, when you read Spivak Chakravarty “can the subaltern speak” or you read her introduction to “on Gramatology”. One really begins to understand the religiousNess of certain academic discourses that propose to be critical in implicit opposition to religious Because the first question that we hope would come to mind when you read either the introduction or the essay of Spivak is how — logistically — I am involved with this discourse? Not how in the sense of what is already implicit in the semantic tradition (ideological) of cause. Ideology comes subsequently, not initially like so many postmoderns would want to see. It comes subsequently because the ideology is already functioning, and whatever is critical about it is coming second. ￼￼￼￼ I often pause when I notice people taking ideology as primary. But I can’t negate and tell them they’re wrong; it is merely that they are mistaken. There is a difference.￼￼￼￼
If the question is answered by anything else then I am already involved with it because it is arising as me — in all areas, not just phenomenological– within a certain context of meaning, as opposed to referring to the context as though it is separated, as if I am arising in some context that I am not involved with except that I am having some sort of thought upon the matter￼,￼￼￼￼ ￼ then we are already involved in a mistake. And I don’t mean this in the sense that all human beings are thus mistaken in their intentionality for interpreting any particular text. I mean this in the sense that only particular human beings arise in either way. There are human beings for whom discourse arises and then a subject is discovered, and there are human beings that arise in discourse. ￼
The problem with many postmodern writers and adherents and academic philosophy in general, if I can generalize so far, is that indeed they are proposing a religious theology. They are involved with not being critical in exactly the area they propose to be involved with their critical theory.
Because the real question involved in Spivak’s type of introduction to these postmoderns is: have I been colonized despite my Best intention￼?
I’m not always sure why these great thinkers are such great thinkers, honestly.
This Strange assumed ￼concern ￼for the ethical human being ￼merely Becuase I am also one brings a kind of sadness as well as a kind of futility and a kind of hopelessness that inhabits or embodies a certain manner of philosophy. Because it really is kind of a religion of being dishonest, if simply because we are not allowed or are questioned to our ethics if we ask the question “why should I care?”
For this is not an indication of my position, as some people might want to read into; it is an honest question that we should Be wanting answers for. ￼￼
And I mean this in the most vehement and direct way possible ￼:￼￼ what exactly am I trying to do when I displace a philosophical discourse to talk about, say, such and such people who have been colonized, for example the people in India and Africa and the Americas, with reference to the colonizers, the Europeans or the white people.
We should immediately be referred to Paulo Freire before we even begin to talk about deconstructing or analyzing Derrida, for example. Because the person that needs to be decolonized, even though any discourse might be specifically speaking of darker skinned people being oppressed as opposed to white or light skin people doing the oppression– We should specifically be dealing with ourselves despite our skin color, and especially if we are white or light skin colored . A philosophy which assumes the point of departure, that is, which assumes that everyone knows it, ￼ is one implicit with whiteness.
The question we should be asking is in what way am I using the language of the colonizer to try and propose some freedom that somehow I am or am not involved with? It is all too easy to get wound up in the nobility of thought and thinking and excuse our enslaved mind by using erudite words and phrases￼. It is always easier to point to someone else to feel bad about ourselves, as well as feel good about ourselves. For that matter, ￼How is our thinking enslaved by our feelings? ￼￼
At what point or when exactly have I ever not been colonized?￼￼ What am I doing, with what exactly am I involved ￼when I am using language to indicate these kind of dichotomies?
And if you want to get really thick into the colonizers’ religion, then read Roland Barthes.
Yet notice￼ the issue that I’m pointing out is not that I’m against these authors or think that they are incorrect or wrong in what they are really indicating in pointing to. It is more the incorrect reader who then takes their discourses to add further distance or to create a situation where somehow the “free self” gets to be involved in a project of “decolonialization” when they have never even thought about or considered how they are already colonized and thus oppressed by the language they are using￼, at least in as much as there might be any substantial identity in play.
Somehow I feel like there’s some sort of lack of reflection occurring ￼. I have to wonder about the young people coming up in academia who want to be academics and what they are going to be teaching future students if their instructors Now are teaching them kind of self Involvement where the thinker gets to exclude themselves from the discourse they are involved with, albeit through a religious kind of “non-spiritual” or “critical” reading of various works￼.￼
I think for sure that there is some sort of thinking going on in this link to post, but I’m not sure if there’s very much self reflection occurring￼,￼ which is really the question that Heidegger brings up as well as Barthes as well as Derrida.
If there is a proper way to understand what these authors are saying, then it contradicts the spirit of what they are trying to say; hence modern subjectivity and its ideology of capitalism is so difficult to get beyond. Because authority is never being questioned or only questioned with reference to the authority in which it is understood axiomatically to be trying to indicate or support.
To avoid the question of “why should i care” is to beckon A reviewing of the Wizard of Oz.
Peace to you all. ￼￼￼￼ 👨🏽🚀