Colonial Discourse Analysis overstated the whole Western archive as bad faith

Evidence

By the rime the theoretical category of ‘Colonial Discourse Analysis’ arose, however, this perfectly necessary rereading of the Western archive was extended to produce the more or less dubious claim thar the whole of it was an archive of bad faith and ‘Orientalist’ deformation. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 262

Categorization

• XREF: Ahmad’s ‘dubious claim’ critique targets the discourse-first move the reader wants traced from Spivak through to materialist critique. — connects to: Treating orientalism as mere colonial discourse is analytically hindering — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 81; Colonial discourse analysis emerged from radical theory’s retreat from immediate activist struggles — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 365

Broader Connections

• Treating orientalism as mere colonial discourse is analytically hindering #corroborates (0.85) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 81
• Colonial discourse analysis emerged from radical theory’s retreat from immediate activist struggles #expands (0.78) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 365