Tricontinental literatures resist unified theoretical generalization due to divergent histories

Evidence

I emphasize not just the obvious lacunae in our empirical knowledge but also that (a) developments during the colonial period are everywhere embedded as much in the pre-colonial legacies as in the colonial processes as such; and (b) cultural productions everywhere greatly exceed the boundaries set by the colonial state and its policies, so that the highly diverse historical trajectories may simply not be available for generalizing theoretical practices and unified narratives on the tricontinental scale. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 1088

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to Ahmad’s broader critique in In Theory of postcolonial theory projecting homogeneous ‘Third World’ subjectivity; parallels Spivak’s own acknowledgment of the tricontinental as internally diverse. — connects to: Theory of history is possible despite the uniqueness of historical facts — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1526; Historical pattern explanations need leveled generality; Structural linguistic asymmetry makes the third-world text unknowable to metropolitan theorists — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 376 (+3 more)
  • QUESTION: Worth chasing: does this passage concede ground to the very historicism strategic essentialism was meant to stave off?

Broader Connections