Postmodern First World contains its own internal Third Worlds along gender and race lines

Evidence

I point out these obvious determinations of Jameson’s text for three reasons. One is to strengthen my proposition that the ideological conditions of a text’s production are never singular but always several. Second, even if I were to accept Jameson’s division of the globe into three worlds, I would still have to insist, as my references not only to feminism and Black Literature but to Jameson’s own location would indicate, that there is right here, within the belly of the First World’s global postmodernism, a veritable Third World, perhaps two or three of them. Third, I want to insist that within the unity that has been bestowed upon our globe by the irreconcilable struggle between capital and labour, there are more and more texts which cannot easily be placed within this or that world. Jameson’s is not a First World text; mine is not a Third World text. We are not each other’s civilizational Others. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 207 (#expands, via linked claim)

For once the world is divided into three large unities, each fundamentally coherent and fundamentally external to one another, it is extremely difficult to speak of any fundamental differences within particular national structures – differences, let us say, of class or of gender formation. One is then forced, by the terms of one’s own discourse, to minimize those kinds of differences, and to absolutize, on the other hand, the difference between, say, the First and the Third Worlds. The preferred technique among cultural theorists, then, is to look at ‘Third World’ literary texts in terms always of their determination by the colonial encounter, but rarely in terms of their determination by class and gender formations, or from the standpoint of what the needs of a socialist cultural production, quite beyond the issue of colonial determination, might be. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 144 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The First World contains its own internal Third Worlds in its texts — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 207; The Three Worlds framework erases class and gender difference within nations — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 144

Related

• The First World contains its own internal Third Worlds in its texts (similarity 0.94)
• The Three Worlds framework erases class and gender difference within nations (similarity 0.89)
• Third-Worldist cultural theory structurally suppresses class and gender analysis (similarity 0.84)
• Metropolitan theory idealized the singularized Third World as the site of cultural opposition (similarity 0.81)
• Third World literary theory effaces Marxism-rooted radical cultural heritage (similarity 0.80)
• The category ‘Third World’ has polemical but no theoretical status (similarity 0.80)
• Third World Literature is a metropolitan fabrication, not a pre-existing category (similarity 0.80)
• The original Third World canon meant pre-colonial texts produced outside the West (similarity 0.80)
• Claims that homogenize ‘Third World Literature’ obscure the imperialist-determined fortunes of its producing bourgeoisie (similarity 0.80)
• Third World Literature as a category is built on Western language archives (similarity 0.79)
• Postmodernism’s dominance frames both critics and canonized Third World authors. (similarity 0.79)
• The ‘Third World Literature’ category presumed a primordial civilizational difference from the West. (similarity 0.79)
• Any complex text is multiply determined across ideological worlds, not just one (similarity 0.79)
• Globalist frameworks can reproduce the imperial binary they oppose (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• The First World contains its own internal Third Worlds in its texts #expands (0.90) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 207
• The Three Worlds framework erases class and gender difference within nations #corroborates (0.75) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 144