If postcolonial theory has ended, what exactly ended, and what was its
task?
-- Simon Gikandi
Our dialogue . . . reminds me of why postcolonial studies has been
significant for me. This field opened my mind. . . . But our dialogue has
also reminded me of why I have found postcolonial studies frustrating.
-- Fernando Coronil
In 2007, the PMLA published an editor's column titled "The End of Postcolonial Theory?" that hosted a conversation with Sunil Agnani, Fernando Coronil, Gaurav Desai, Mamadou Diouf, Simon Gikandi, Susie Tharu, and Jennifer Wenzel. For the epigraphs above, I have chosen two moments of this dialogue that illustrate the ambivalent intellectual positionings provoked by postcolonial theory. The column repeats a well-known scene in most of the scholarship that adopts postcolonialism as
its theoretical paradigm: the moment of etymological crisis in which the authors feel compelled to explain how the postcolonial is still a productive approach to pose questions about sixteenth-century Latin America, nineteenth-century Africa, or the twentieth-century Caribbean. In each case, to use Coronil's wording, postcolonialism opens the mind and frustrates specific modes of understanding.

Leave a comment