Time’, ‘space’, ‘place’ are some of the frequently used (sometimes misused) terms in literature, and they have been defined in different ways and from various theoretical perspectives. In the colonial discourse, in particular, the concept ‘place’ was closely related to knowledge and power in so far as the process of mapping the ‘other spaces ‘ was deployed to reproduce dominant world view. While the tenants of imperialism are teleological, its practices have always been geographic. As Edward said argues in Culture and Imperialism:
If there is anything that radically distinguishes the imagination of anti-imperialism, it is the primacy of geographical element. Imperialism after all is an act of geographical violence through which virtually every space in the world is explored, charted, and finally brought under control. For the native, the history of colonial servitude is inaugurated by loss of the locality to the outsider; its geographical identity must thereafter be searched for and somehow restored. Because of the colonizing outsider, the land is recoverable at first only through the imagination ( 271). This statement invites us to study maps as inherentl ideological representations that reflect the social contexts and interests of their creators. …show more content…
In other words, far from being neutral, maps are rhetorical texts used to negotiate power relations and maintain hegemonic systems. Both literally and metaphorically, maps were largely deployed to disseminate certain conceptualizations about space, particularly the idea of ‘Africa’ or ‘India’ as bounded, exotic, peripheral, archaic, and timeless.
In “Beyond Culture”, Akil Gupta and Jameson Ferguson further elaborate on the intertwined nature of space and colonialism:
Colonialism…represents the displacement of one form of interconnection by another. This is not to deny that colonialism or an expanding capitalism does indeed have profoundly dislocating effects on existing societies. But, by always foregrounding the spatial distribution of hierarchical power relations, we can better understand the process whereby a space achieves a distinctive identity as a place. (2) Following their line of argument, Gupta and Ferguson believe that even though the colonial experience does not necessarily affect the physical landscape of the colony, the process of invasion and occupation complicate the spatial identity of the colony and thus dislocate the subject’s perception of territoriality. They state that the representation of space from a rigid Eurocentric perspective has significant implications as to the sense of identity of the colonised. Because the colonized subjects were partly represented and shaped in relation to their respective space, it was the task of postcolonial literature to put into question the tenability of Europe’s ‘conceptual’ cartography. In other terms, ‘the peripheral’ Indian/African subjects who were entirely excluded from cartographic representations are now entitled to rewrite their own ‘space’ and to map their own boundaries. In The Empire Writes Back, Ashcroft et al indeed point out that a major feature of postcolonial literatures is the concern with place and displacement: It is here that the postcolonial crisis of identity emerges, the need to develop or recover an effective identifying relationship between self and place. A valid sense of self may have been eroded by dislocation or it may have been destroyed by cultural denigration. Place, displacement and a pervasive concern with the myths of identity and authenticity are a feature common to all English postcolonial literatures’ (1989: 8). To develop or recover what Ashcroft et al. identify as ‘the sense of place’ the postcolonial writer was entitled not simply to subvert such grand conceptual schema as ‘centre/periphery’ but rather to project an alternative perspective of space which contests the meanings and representations of conceptual mapping. In this respect, a spatial turn was detrimental in establishing a new understanding of space as a cultural product, inherently interactive and mutually constructed. It should be noted that this spatial turn should be directed not only to the Orientalist mappings but also to the nation’s pedagogical reading of space. Like the idea of the Bharatmata (Mother India) discussed in the previous chapter, space is one of the framing aspect of the foundational discourse of the nation state. In the discourse of the nation, space is always presented as homogenous, static and total. It is an all-inclusive realm where nation, community, and citizen ‘happily’ coexist. Read from this perspective, space becomes the prerequisite of identity in so far
If there is anything that radically distinguishes the imagination of anti-imperialism, it is the primacy of geographical element. Imperialism after all is an act of geographical violence through which virtually every space in the world is explored, charted, and finally brought under control. For the native, the history of colonial servitude is inaugurated by loss of the locality to the outsider; its geographical identity must thereafter be searched for and somehow restored. Because of the colonizing outsider, the land is recoverable at first only through the imagination ( 271). This statement invites us to study maps as inherentl ideological representations that reflect the social contexts and interests of their creators. …show more content…
In other words, far from being neutral, maps are rhetorical texts used to negotiate power relations and maintain hegemonic systems. Both literally and metaphorically, maps were largely deployed to disseminate certain conceptualizations about space, particularly the idea of ‘Africa’ or ‘India’ as bounded, exotic, peripheral, archaic, and timeless.
In “Beyond Culture”, Akil Gupta and Jameson Ferguson further elaborate on the intertwined nature of space and colonialism:
Colonialism…represents the displacement of one form of interconnection by another. This is not to deny that colonialism or an expanding capitalism does indeed have profoundly dislocating effects on existing societies. But, by always foregrounding the spatial distribution of hierarchical power relations, we can better understand the process whereby a space achieves a distinctive identity as a place. (2) Following their line of argument, Gupta and Ferguson believe that even though the colonial experience does not necessarily affect the physical landscape of the colony, the process of invasion and occupation complicate the spatial identity of the colony and thus dislocate the subject’s perception of territoriality. They state that the representation of space from a rigid Eurocentric perspective has significant implications as to the sense of identity of the colonised. Because the colonized subjects were partly represented and shaped in relation to their respective space, it was the task of postcolonial literature to put into question the tenability of Europe’s ‘conceptual’ cartography. In other terms, ‘the peripheral’ Indian/African subjects who were entirely excluded from cartographic representations are now entitled to rewrite their own ‘space’ and to map their own boundaries. In The Empire Writes Back, Ashcroft et al indeed point out that a major feature of postcolonial literatures is the concern with place and displacement: It is here that the postcolonial crisis of identity emerges, the need to develop or recover an effective identifying relationship between self and place. A valid sense of self may have been eroded by dislocation or it may have been destroyed by cultural denigration. Place, displacement and a pervasive concern with the myths of identity and authenticity are a feature common to all English postcolonial literatures’ (1989: 8). To develop or recover what Ashcroft et al. identify as ‘the sense of place’ the postcolonial writer was entitled not simply to subvert such grand conceptual schema as ‘centre/periphery’ but rather to project an alternative perspective of space which contests the meanings and representations of conceptual mapping. In this respect, a spatial turn was detrimental in establishing a new understanding of space as a cultural product, inherently interactive and mutually constructed. It should be noted that this spatial turn should be directed not only to the Orientalist mappings but also to the nation’s pedagogical reading of space. Like the idea of the Bharatmata (Mother India) discussed in the previous chapter, space is one of the framing aspect of the foundational discourse of the nation state. In the discourse of the nation, space is always presented as homogenous, static and total. It is an all-inclusive realm where nation, community, and citizen ‘happily’ coexist. Read from this perspective, space becomes the prerequisite of identity in so far