Susmita Roy
Department of
English
Shahjalal University
of Science and Technology
Sylhet,
Bangladesh
Abstract:
Racial ideology means pervasive belief
about race which is used in segregating the people of other races as the
“other.” Language, in this “othering” process, is used as a weapon to segregate
and to colonize the “oriental others.” In the Colonial era, the colonizers
demeaned the languages used by the natives as “indigenous and uncivilized” and
imposed the use of colonial hegemonic language on them as we can see in Denial
Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. This imposed colonial hegemonic
language, in this postcolonial period, is used to deform the standard language
by abrogating it and to make the language carry the experiences of their
colonial past by reforming it in a new hybrid form. But, this use of deformed
colonial language by the colonized in postcolonial texts is often criticized
and laughed at by the western critics and even by some postcolonial native
critics who consider using colonial as perpetual linguistic slavery of the
natives. This work is an attempt to reflect Kamala Das’s stance on the use of
colonial language in postcolonial texts and the bold answer she gives to those
criticisms in her poem “An Introduction.” This study at its conclusion shows
that unlike to Ngugi Wa Thiongo, Kamala Das like Chinua Achebe finds using
colonial language in postcolonial texts as useful “as cawing is to crows or
roaring to the lions” because it conveys her “honest expression” from her
decolonized “aware” mind.
Keywords: Linguistic
Colonization, Decolonization, Racial Ideology, Postcolonial, Language, Debate
Introduction
Kamala Das’s poem “An Introduction” is
often studied as a confessional feministic poem. But, along with Das’s
feministic stance on patriarchal society, this poem also represents her
postcolonial stance on the language debate of postcolonial writing. This
article primarily focuses on the postcolonial reading of this poem. This
article also discusses in its distinctive sub-headings the role of language in
the colonization and decolonization process, racial ideology of language, and
the prevalent postcolonial debate upon linguistic decolonization in
postcolonial writings to understand and analyze Das’s stance on postcolonial
language debate better.
Language as a tool of colonization and
decolonization
Language, in the colonization process, was a tool to fasten colonization
by branding the native’s language as “substandard and barbarous” and imposing
the colonizers’ language upon the colonized. On the contrary, language, in the
decolonization process, is a tool to counter colonization by deforming the
colonizers’ language and making it carry the natives’ experiences. This process
of linguistic colonization and decolonization is well reflected in Aime
Cesaire’s A Tempest where to Prospero language is a weapon
of property to power and to Caliban language is a weapon of protest against
power. The role of language in colonization and decolonization hence can be
described as below-
Language as a means of Property à power ß
Language as a means of Protest
to
the (Colonizers) to
the (decolonized)
The way language is used in the
colonization process to exercise power is challenged by the way language is
used in the decolonization process to destroy the colonial power. In the
decolonization process, the resistance to linguistic slavery is undertaken
either by using native language or by using abrogated colonial language in
postcolonial texts. For the former attempt, the native language is preferred in
postcolonial texts as a revolt against colonialism because to them language
carry cultural experience as reflected in Ngugi remarks in his Decolonizing
the Mind-
…Written literature and orature are the main means by which a particular
language transmits the images of the world contained in the culture it carries…
Language carries culture, and culture carries, particularly through orature and
literature, the entire body of values by which we perceive ourselves and our
place in the world … Language is thus inseparable from ourselves as a community
of human beings with a specific form and character, a specific history, a
specific relationship to the world. (15-16)
For Ngugi, the native language is an
imperative medium to convey traditional and cultural experiences. On contrary
to this, for the latter attempt, colonial language is preferred in postcolonial
text, but in an abrogated hybrid form, as a revolt against colonialism because
to them colonial language convey odd colonial experiences to the colonizers and
its abrogation and deformation can be a form of protest to linguistic slavery
as reflected in Chinua Achebe’s remarks in his essay “The English Language and
the African writer” –
…He (the African writer) should at fashioning out an English which is at
once universal and able to carry his peculiar experience. (21)
Achebe’s stance is for an adopted
hybrid English in a new African setting which will convey his odd colonial
experience to the international language the way he does through his novel.
Achebe’s stance is justified through his hybrid African English as we find Igbo
words such as “chi” in his novels written in English. Thus, unlike to Ngugi and
Ceisaire, Achebe goes for using English in postcolonial texts. Therefore, concerning
postcolonial writings, there remains a debate on which language to use in
postcolonial texts. The next section will show how racial ideology works in
linguistic criticism of a postcolonial text by western parameters of literary
aesthetics.
Racial ideology and linguistic
criticism in the postcolonial era
In the age of globalization, the Hegemonic colonial language (English) is
a recognized medium for international communication but racial ideology, in
this communication, creates segregation between English used by the occidental
people and English used by the oriental people. Oriental English, to the
Europeans, is not Standard English and has “indigenousness” in it. Karen E.
Fields and Barbara J. Fields’ in their book Racecraft- The Soul
of Inequality in American Life claim that the Europeans use language
as a tool to differentiate the Afro-Americans as “others” and to create
inequality in schooling. Segregation by race, to Fieldses, is not the result of
“hallucination or delusion or even simple hypocrisy; rather, it is
ideology.”(Fieldses 118-19) This ideology, silently giving birth to racism, is
hereditarily transformed from generation to generation and is found in
segregation between the colonizer’ English and the colonized peoples’ English
and leads to criticizing the postcolonial writings in English as “substandard”.
The next section shows in what ways postcolonial writings face criticism from
western critics.
Criticism of postcolonial texts
written in English by the colonizers
Postcolonial texts in English, as mentioned earlier in this paper, are
subject to criticism from the colonizers because they claim English as their
language. This claim differentiates colonized peoples’ English as “others
English” which, according to them, is sub-standard having indigenousness. This
indigenousness, as the western critics claim, reduces the value of postcolonial
texts. Along with that, postcolonial texts, written in English, are presumed to
be assessed in terms of European traditional aesthetic standard as it is
written in “their” language.
This universal application of European
aesthetic standard is brought into question in Chinua Achebe’s essay “Where
Angels Fear to Tread” where he identifies this type of tendency as mere
“increasing dogmatism” and being self-evident.”(Achebe 63) Achebe in this same
essay also describes three different types of European critics of African
writers where he finds the best of these three types as “cocksureness” in their
aesthetic value which is annoying. J. P. Clark in his essay "Our Literary
Critics" also claims that European criticism of African literature is an
attempt to impede African postcolonial writings. These claims clarify the fact
that postcolonial texts written in English by non-Europeans face bitter
criticism by the Europeans as they claim English as their language.
Criticism of postcolonial texts
written in English by the colonized
Along with the criticism of European critics, postcolonial non-European
English texts are also criticized by some postcolonial critics and writers
because they think English can never be a language of protest. They, rather,
prefer the native language to reflect counter colonialism in their writings.
The use of English in postcolonial texts, to Ngugi Wa Thiongo, erases
pre-colonial past and accepts new forms of colonial domination. A postcolonial
writer like Aime Cesaire also goes for writing in “Sohili language” rather than
writing in English. Postcolonial critic and researcher Ihechukwu Madubuike in
his article “Achebe’s Ideas on Literature” claims that the choice of colonial
language to write is “a regrettable one” and this choice “implies perpetuation
of linguistic slavery” of the writers. (Madubuike 68)These remarks and views by
various postcolonial thinkers, critics, and writers indicate the issue of
criticism that a postcolonial text written in English invites from the
postcolonial critics themselves.
Kamala Das reflection on the debate on
language of postcolonial texts in “An Introduction”
From the earlier
sections of this article, we find a debate, among the postcolonial writers and
thinkers, on the language selection of postcolonial texts. This concluding
section of the article will discuss the reflection of Kamala Das’s stance on
this language debate in her poem “An Introduction.” In this poem, Das
challenges those prevalent criticisms of postcolonial texts written in English.
To her, colonial language is no longer the property of the colonizers rather it
is now universal for which the colonization process is responsible. As
Kishalaya Podder in his article “Kamala Das’s Identity of Language in “An
Introduction”: A Study on Homi K. Bhabha’s Concept” pointing out Homi
K Bhabha’s concept of mimicry, notes that linguistic colonization is a trap for
the colonizers too because it allows the natives to face the colonizers. As it
contends-
“Here the fact is that when a native man knowingly or unknowingly
follows his masters he disobeys the power system that proves the hollowness of
those masters. So it’s an elusive weapon of decolonization that is not apparent
in common eyes. The colonizers don’t understand that it’s a trap for them also
in which the natives are allowed to be face to face to their foreign masters.
It provides an ironic compromise where the ‘otherness’ of colonized is
decreased, rather their indigenous originality is flourished.”(Podder 903)
Podder referring to Homi K Bhabha’s concept of mimicry shows how language
itself becomes an elusive weapon of the decolonization process in which the
colonial language no longer belongs to the colonizers only but to the colonized
also. Whoever speaks in this language owns it even in its distorted form. In
the words of Kamala Das-
The language I speak,
Becomes
mine, its distortions, its queernesses
All mine,
mine alone.” (Das, lones 11-13)
From these lines, we can retrieve Kamala Das’s stance on the debate on
the language of postcolonial writings. To her, it is not necessary to write in
the mother tongue to be a decolonized writer rather using colonial language can
be a tool to distort the colonial past. Therefore, she begins her poem by
giving her identity as a decolonized Indian and claims that the distorted “half
English, half Indian” language is her honest expression. To quote her-
I am Indian, very brown,
born in Malabar,
I
speak three languages, write in
Two,
dream in one…” (Das, lines 4-6)
Kamala also bitterly criticizes the critics and the society members who
impede her to use English to express her honest feeling just because it is not
her mother tongue. She strengthens her points of opposition towards them by
showing how the language she uses becomes her by expressing her joys, her
longings, her hopes. As she writes-
Why not let me speak in
Any language I like? The language I
speak,
Becomes mine, its distortions, its
queernesses
All mine, mine alone.
It is half English, half Indian, funny
perhaps, but it is honest,
It is as human as I am human, don't
You see? It voices my joys, my
longings, my hopes (Das, lines 10-16)
Along with showing the reason for her use of the English language, Kamala
Das in her poem also shows why English is useful as a literary medium of
postcolonial writings. In her view, this language is useful as cawing to crows
or as roaring to lions because this language gives her the strength and
opportunity to roar back, to convey her message to the colonizers, and the
words she utters in this language come from her aware heart. In her words-
It
is useful to me as cawing
Is
to crows or roaring to the lions, it
Is human speech, the speech of
the mind that is
Here
and not there, a mind that sees and hears and
Is
aware. (Das, lines 17-21)
In these lines, the use of words such as “roar”, “aware” indicates Kamala
Das’s decolonized stance in using colonial language. Because every single word
of this language she utters or writes comes from a mind that is “here”
(postcolonial India) not there (Colonial India). Her mind is well aware which
can see and hear and which can fight back. To fight back as a decolonized
person Kamala finds English as a useful medium. Thus, Das’s poem “An
Introduction” reflects her stance on the debate of language in postcolonial
writings.
Conclusion
Language, in both the colonization and decolonization process, is an
important weapon to gain interest. After decolonization, there is a call for
decolonizing linguistic slavery too. In this call, Postcolonial critics and
thinkers are divided into two groups where some are on the behalf of using
colonial language and some are in the opposition to using colonial language in
postcolonial writings. This paper brings out the very essence of Kamala Das’s
stance on this debate as reflected in her poem “An Introduction.” This article
shows how this poem apart from being the representation of Kamala Das’s
feminist stance, is also a representation of her stance as being a postcolonial
writer.
Works Cited
Achebe, Chinua. Morning Yet
on Creation Day: Essays. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press,
1976.
Césaire, Aimé. A Tempest: Based on
Shakespeare's The Tempest, Adaptation for a Black
Theatre. New York :TCG Translations,
2002.
Das, Kamala. “An Introduction.” Only the Soul Knows How to Sing: Selections
from
Kamala Das.
Kottayam: DC Books, 1999.
Fields, Karen E., and Barbara J.
Fields. Racecraft: the Soul of Inequality in American Life.
Verso Book, 2016.
Clark, J.P."Our Literary
Critics." Nigeria magazine, September 1962, pp. 78-82.
Madubuike, Ihechukwu. “Chinua Achebe :
His Ideas on African Literature.” Présence
Africaine, no. 93, 1975, pp. 140–152. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24349663.
Accessed 17 Aug. 2020.
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Decolonising
the Mind: The Politics of Language in African
Literature.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann,
1981.15-16.
Podder, Kishalaya. “Kamala Das’s Identity of Language in
“An Introduction”: A Study on
Homi K. Bhabha’s Concept.” IJRAR- International
Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, vol. 5, no. 2, 2018, pp.
902-904.