Discourse-first theory redefines imperialism as a wealth relation rather than class structure

Evidence

An obvious consequence of repudiating Marxism was that one now sought to make sense of the world of colonies and empires much less in terms of classes, much more in terms of nations and countries and races, and thought of imperialism itself not as a hierarchically structured system of global capitalism but as a relation, of governance and occupation, between richer and poorer countries, West and non-West. And whether one said so or not, one inevitably believed that ideas - ‘culture’ was the collective term in most mystifications, or ‘discourse’, but it mainly meant books and filmsand not the material conditions of life which include the instance of culture itself, determine the fate of peoples and nations. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 182

Categorization

  • XREF: This condenses Ahmad’s whole materialist critique of discourse-determinism — the core claim the reader is tracing through this book. Connects to Spivak’s ‘strategic essentialism’ critique from the same discourse-first lineage, and to the Foucault race-struggle counter-history in Society Must Be Defended. — connects to: Marxian theory is structurally unable to grasp modern imperialism; Repudiating Marxism reframed global power as a West-non-West relation of nations rather than classes — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 70; Classical Marxism neglected imperialism in its theory of capitalist development — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2: Identity…, 486
  • DEFINE: Key definitional move: ‘culture’/‘discourse’ as the category that displaces class and material conditions in postcolonial theory.

Broader Connections