Cultural formations are constituted by sedimented histories, not single colonial moments.

Evidence

What this original Gramscian idea could mean, for example, is that the l,talian cultural formation cannot be read back from fascism or the Risorgimento or even the failure of the Reformationhence the unfinished character of the Italian Renaissance; that it would have to be traced all the way back, historically, to the very moment of the ascendancy of the High Church and of High Latin as the language of that Church, as well as from the histories of subordinations following thereafter; in other words, histories, and therefore subjectivities, are constituted not by what Gramsci calls ‘moments’ but by the always-accumulating processes of sedimentation and accretion. In relation to India, then, this original Gramscian formulation would mean, at the very least, that colonialism was doubtless a key ‘moment’ - even, in some specific areas, a decisive ‘moment’ - bur the history of sedimentations which constitutes the Indian cultural formation includes much besides colonialism per se. I clarify this point here in order to emphasize that there is at least one major strand of literary theory which has developed under Said’s influence- ‘Colonial Discourse Analysis’- which is notable for its separation of the ‘inventory of colonial traces’ from other sorts of inventories, other sorts of traces. This, too, fitsnot only in the sense that if we are constituted by colonialism, then the only discourse that really matters is the discourse of the colonialist, but also because of the example that Edward Said himself had set in his book. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 702

Categorization

• XREF: Directly serves the reader’s research: this Gramscian ‘sedimentation not moments’ point is the materialist alternative to discourse-determinist readings — exactly the axis of Ahmad’s critique of Colonial Discourse Analysis. — connects to: Colonial animosities are historical experience, not an eternal order; Colonial cities produced meaning through differential interrelation, not individual structures. — Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 507; Colonial influence is not a single center but multiple Frances layered by history. — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity…, 833 (+1 more)
• DEFINE: Clarifies the Gramscian notion of historical ‘sedimentation and accretion’ against the ‘moment’ model that discourse-determinist colonial theory effectively embraces.

Broader Connections

• Subjectivity is formed not by single moments but by accumulated historical sedimentation #expands (0.88) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 307
• Colonial influence is not a single center but multiple Frances layered by history. #exemplifies (0.82) — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 833
• Colonial animosities are historical experience, not an eternal order #expands (0.75)
• Colonial cities produced meaning through differential interrelation, not individual structures. #expands (0.75) — Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 507