Post-colonialism differs from post-modernism by keeping grand narratives of emancipation alive

Evidence

But even if we take such injunctions seriously (as we must), there is a solid basis in historical experience for the appearance today of interest in both post-modernism and its quite different counterpart post-colonialism. There is first of all the much greater Eurocentric bias in the former, and a preponderance of theoretical and aesthetic emphasis stressing the local and the contingent, as well as the almost decorative weightlessness of history, pastiche, and above all consumerism. The earliest studies of the post-colonial were by such distinguished thinkers as Anwar Abdel Malek, Samir Amin, and C. L. R. James, almost all based on studies of domination and control done from the standpoint of either a completed political independence or an incomplete liberationist project. Yet whereas post-modernism in one of its most famous programmatic statements (Jean-François Lyotard’s) stresses the disappearance of the grand narratives of emancipation and enlightenment, the emphasis behind much of the work done by the first generation of post-colonial artists and scholars is exactly the opposite: the grand narratives remain, even though their implementation and realization are at present in abeyance, deferred, or circumvented. — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 877

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the post-modernism vs post-colonialism distinction — post-modernism declares the grand narratives of emancipation dead, whereas post-colonialism treats them as deferred but still binding.
• XREF: Connects to the scaffolding purpose of this reading: the distinction prepares the theoretical vocabulary later Islamophobia scholarship leans on. — connects to: Poststructuralism’s rise in colonial literary theory conceals rather than explains its material-economic context — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 163
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Edward W. Said, Orientalism, 877