Although we have thus far been discussing Latour's invocation of Jagannath's tale as an analysis
of literary fiction, Latour never makes this identification explicitly.14 The bibliography at the
end ofPandora's Hope does not inform us of crucial features; its title, language, and author go
unlisted. Furthermore, Latour introduces the reader to Jagannath as if he were familiarizing us
with the actions of a real person:
His name is Jagannath, and he has decided to break the spell of castes and
untouchability by revealing to the pariahs that the sacred saligram, the powerful
stone that protects his high-caste family, is nothing to be afraid of.
(Pandora's 268)
As it turns out, Jaganath's tale is extracted from the novel Bharathipura.15 Written in Kannada-one of the Dravidian South Asian vernaculars--in 1974, its author, U.R. Anantha Murthy,
remains a prominent figure in the literary world of Kannadan and Indian vernacular letters.
What Latour interprets is but a fragment of the novel that first appears in English in Another
India, a collection of translated vernacular Indian literature.16
The translations of prose and poetry that appear in Another India were originally composed in
one of the dozens of vernaculars used in the subcontinent. The editors, Nissim Ezekiel and
Meenakshi Mukherjee, primarily attempted to showcase the complexity and richness of Indian
vernacular letters and to counter the disproportionate emphasis placed on Anglophonic "Indian"
writing in Europe and North America. Such an ambition was prescient with respect to future
debates. In 1997, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of India's independence, Salman
Rushdie would contend that the only writing of substance in South Asia was composed in
English:
The prose writing--both fiction and nonfiction--created in this period [the fifty years
of independence] by Indian writers working in English is proving to be a stronger
and more important body of work than most of what has been produced in the
eighteen "recognized" languages of India, the so-called "vernacular languages,"
during the same time. . . . The True Indian literature of the first postcolonial half
century has been made in the language the British left behind.
(50)
Latour's readers, however, are never apprised of this significant tension in South Asian literature
(and in much writing characterized as "postcolonial").17 Consequently, the significance of
translation and the problem of incommensurability in Jagannath's tale are never addressed. For
example, there is no mention of the parallels between Jagannath's inability to comprehend
the Dalitand the postcolonial Indian writer's dilemma of choosing from amongst the various
possibilities for political identification and representation that different languages--notably local
vernacular and the colonial tongue--afford.
Latour begins by informing the reader that "His name is Jagannath," but his analysis of
Jagannath's story does not focus on its linguistic, historical, and etymological contexts. That the
protagonist has this particular name is significant; it is replete with powerful associations in
South Asian religious experience. The Temple of Jagannath in Puri, Orissa, celebrates a popular
and mischievous avatar of Vishnu/Krishna and is a major pilgrimage site for many of South
Asia's Hindus.18 The reference to Jagannath (Sanskrit for "ruler of all the world" or "ruler of the
universe") draws associations to a figure revered by millions of South Asians. Significantly, this
avatar of Vishnu is celebrated for his transgressive qualities; he is a cunning and lusty trickster.
There is also an important etymological relation between a juggernaut and Jagannath. Although
the name Jagannath is drawn from the temple in Puri, its European usage refers to religious
spectacle. According to European travelers' tales, during the Rathayatra Festival zealots would
throw themselves underneath the giant wheels of a chariot towed by pilgrims to the temple
gates.19 The "juggernaut" has long harbored characteristic features of Orientalist exoticism: its
European legacy conjures irrationality and religious fanaticism in order to mark the Indian as
"other"--a function that India has served in various European imaginaries, dating from at least
Europe's early modern period onward. As the English-educated, Kannada-speaking Brahmin,
Jagannath thus carries in his name associations that reverberate in these contexts of South Asian
religio-cultural consciousness and Anglophonic etymology.20 Similarly, linguistic resonances
relating to debates over Indian modernity can be found in Bharathipura, the novel's title. The
subject of caste has for many become synonymous with the "Indian condition," and tales of
uplifting the downtrodden from caste entrenchment have come to be seen as paradigmatic of the
possibility of modernizing India. These issues have been rendered into numerous aesthetic
forms--the subject of novels, films, and philosophical tracts--both inside India and abroad. 21 It
is not surprising, therefore, that the title of Murthy's novel, Bharathipura, establishes a
metaphorical relationship between a specific geographical site, Bharathipura, and the Indian
nation as a whole. Bharat is the ancient Sanskrit name for "India," and pura means village.
Roughly translated, Bharathipura designates the "Village of India." Thus, an element of general
social critique via the microcosm of the village is prominently featured for the reader even
before any of the novel's plot is revealed.22
Finally, as a work written for a Kannadan audience and only recently translated in its
entirety,Bharathipura addresses several key issues raised within Anglophone postcolonial
studies. The question of the significance of composing in the so-called colonizer's language is a
vibrant and contentious feature of postcolonial societies that concerns the manner in which
categories such as "literature" and the "literary" are negotiated. Untranslated vernacular literary
"traditions" consciously experiment with the problem of how to accommodate the enormous
cultures of book and print that arose in connection with the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth
century introduction of European print technologies. The language communities served by these
vernaculars together constitute a diverse, national entity: a heterogeneous India where Gujarati,
Bengali, Tamil, and fifteen other vernaculars are recognized as languages appropriate for
literary expression. Thus, if the umbrella term "nation" can be used to refer to postcolonial
India, it is only in the context of a sovereign nation that is learning to accommodate substantial
regional and linguistic differences.23In this context, Murthy's decision to write in Kannada is
deliberate. Like many Indian literati, he works in more than one language. In fact, Murthy's
1966 doctoral degree in comparative literary studies is from the University of Birmingham:
three years earlier, the renowned Center for Cultural Studies was established at Birmingham by
noted Marxist scholars Richard Hoggart and Stuart Hall. The complex treatment of varied
Marxist/Socialist positions over the course of Bharathipuraspeaks to Murthy's familiarity with
contemporary "Western" scholarship, as well as to the prominent place of Marx amongst India's
own intellectuals and politicians. The English language translation of the entire novel was not
available until 1996, more than two decades afterBharathipura's first appearance in print.
What the excerpt of Bharathipura Latour reads occludes, and what the novel's cultural texture
helps focus, is Murthy's critique of liberal ideas of cultural authenticity. At the beginning
ofBharathipura, Jagannath recalls going to the University of London to study. Once there he
uses his charisma and intelligence to seduce women with "revolutionary" zeal:
What had he done for five years in England? . . . He had become a magnetic
existentialist . . . . His black eyes, olive complexion, his tone of voice . . . all of these
he had used with superb sleight-of-hand. He turned liberal, a reader of The
Guardian. Reason--simple. Liberal rhetoric helped him justify his aimless drifting
addressing the issue of untouchability through the objectification of the Dalit. Whereas some
critics contend that this act of reification subjugates the untouchables further, we can perhaps
better view Murthy's literary strategy as one that highlights how dominant groups, even ones
with emancipatory liberal intentions, find it difficult to view the "other" apart from their own
projections and include the "other" on terms that do not exceed self-interest.27
In this respect, Murthy's literary and political aims are perhaps best understood in the context
of the modern novel as a literary technology. Since the nineteenth-century, historical realist
fiction has been used as an instrument that enables competing vantage points to negotiate their
partial and situated perspectives against the reader's God's-eye view--a disembodied perspective
through which all of the personal and institutional machinations that are central to the plot of the
novel are perceived as transparent.28 In the tradition of Marxist historical realist fiction, it is
expected that the reader be left with a new view of social reality, one that is less ideologically
distorted and that presents avenues for political action. In this context, the possibility of
revolutionary activism links literary representation with political praxis: the reader is given the
impression that as a result of understanding the novel, he or she is better placed to engage with
injustice and ideological mystification. Indeed, the reader can feel transformed: he or she is no
longer an ordinary social agent, but instead has become enlightened about matters of personal
complicity vis--vis class complicity.
Although Bharathipura belongs to the genre of social realism, it is not Marxist; selfconsciously Kannadan, Bharathipura relies upon the heteroglossic potential of the novel to
suggest that caste politics at the local level cannot be altered when action is justified by nonlocal norms. Specifically, the reader is made to observe how modern critique and traditional
beliefs confront one another: at novel's end, traditional beliefs appropriate and circumvent
critical intervention. While the Marxist realist tradition of the novel is
invoked, Bharathipura defies the expectations of a genre that revolves around issues of
domination and injustice. Because an untouchable consciousness is absent in it, the novel--as a
genre and a form--seems to be rendered ineffective for adequately addressing the exclusion of
minoritarian voices. In this reading, such an impasse offers an ironic, high-modernist
perspective on the tropes of caste and untouchability in postcolonial India. Far from inciting the
reader to revolution, Bharathipura seems to suggest that while the literary imagination has the
potential to deflate overly zealous critical ambition, it cannot establish a direct course of action
for citizens to pursue. If any of the diverse South Asian readers are implicated by the
untouchables' plight, the novel remains silent on why this is the case and what should be done to
redress it. By not giving the Dalit representation, what the novel suggests ultimately is that until
the Dalitrepresent themselves, "we" cannot represent them either. Their naming, as in the case
of Dalit in modern Indian history, must occur through acts of self-naming. The impetus
for Dalit representation must come from within communities of the excluded and enter into the
larger body of civil society--a society that must be able to refashion itself in order to accept, and
adapt to, Dalit inclusion in the postcolonial Indian nation-state.29
Latour and Postcolonial Theory
It is tempting to compare Latour's discussion of Jagannath to Said's intervention into V.S.
Naipaul's politics of demystification in "Among the Believers." 30 There Said takes issue with
Naipaul's portrayal, regarding his visit to Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia, of the West as
"the world of knowledge, criticism, technical know-how, and functioning institutions" and of
Islamic culture as "fearfully enraged and retarded dependent [sic]" (114). Said's position is that
so long as Naipaul is, through his "acquired British identity," prejudiced to see the world in this
way, it is impossible for him to perceive or learn anything new: "What he sees he sees because it
happens before him and, more important, because it already confirms what, except for an eyecatching detail, he already knows. He does not learn: they prove" (116, 113). The crucial point,
one that is central to both Latour's and Said's respective analyses, is that neither an empathetic
nor an epistemic connection to "otherness" is possible if the observer mistakes projected for
genuine native beliefs. Recall Latour's contention that "it is the critical thinker who invents the
notion of belief and manipulation and projects this notion upon a situation in which the fetish
plays an entirely different role" (Pandora's 270). Said reminds us that so long as Naipaul
remains within the space of "carefully chosen" and "absolutely safe" places to visit, so long as
he fails to "live among them" and "risk their direct retaliation," so long as he fails to be like
Socrates and "live through the consequences of his criticism," he can only present characters
that "barely come alive" in landscapes that are "half-hearted at best" (116).
Despite these parallels between Latour and Said, important differences mark their approaches
to literary analysis. By the time Latour publishes Iconoclash, it becomes clear that he is not
familiar with the complete Bharathipura. The one-page discussion of Jagannath
in Iconclash includes a reference to Murthy and his novel, but nothing to explain
why Pandora's Hope presents an incomplete citation. Although Latour goes so far as to claim
that Jagannath's tale is "at the origin" of the Iconoclash exhibition-discussing the inspirational
value of Jagannath at the level of personal origin--he does not discuss the issue of cultural
origins: he does not say why Kannadan writers were grappling with the limits of ideology
critique in the 1970s. This occlusion allows us to distinguish between Said's intervention into
Naipaul and Latour's intervention into Murthy. Although Latour connects his use of Jagannath's
tale to his project of "letting beliefs regain their ontological weight," the fact remains that for
Latour, India is imaginary at best--a phantasm connected solely with a literary fragment that,
when taken out of context, bears unexamined but significant ethnographic traces.
We contend that the type of scholarship Latour exhibits in the context of his appropriation of
Jagannath is problematic and relates to the questionable strategies he uses to solidify the
disciplinary identity of STS by attempting to prematurely settle the question: what kind of
expertise entitles one to speak authoritatively about science and technology, and in which
contexts and for what purposes? As our discussion of Murthy demonstrates, the limits of
ideology critique are already being established in South Asia during the early 1970s. By
contextualizing that which is left out of Latour's reading, we can register an "East" that is not
essentialized and objectified. In recognizing the specific conditions that have contributed to the
text's production and circulation--its literary and "translated" status, its original production and
consumption as a vernacular as opposed to "national" language, and its deliberate positioning
with regard to contemporary intellectual and political life both in South Asia and in Europe--we
can register more than an East that serves to put on display the hubris of the modernist critic.
Indeed, in light of our contextualization, Latour's deployment of Jagannath would be even more
persuasive in that the use and abuse of ideology critique in South India highlights the
heterogeneity and complexity of resistance to the supposed universalism of modernist reason.
Once again, postcolonial instantiations of modernities, as opposed to the Eurocentric uniformity
of a singular modernity, reveal the negotiations taking place in situ.31 As in the laboratory,
decoding the practices of particular villages highlights the degree to which they cannot be
abstracted out of their historical time and place.
When considering these factors, it becomes important to take into account the status of works
of literature within Latour's project of analyzing the limits of ideology critique. Literary
investigations have been demarcated historically from more "proper" theoretical investigations
based on considerations of the kinds of claims formal and conceptual arguments can yield and
the kinds of claims narrative can provide. However well a story may allow readers to come to a
new understanding of the world, however much it enables readers to imagine that things could
be other than they currently are, some contend that the readers' ability to articulate what is
compelling depends upon their going beyond literary possibility by making philosophical
arguments concerning what justifies (or fails to justify) the beliefs, intentions, and actions of the
literary characters. When Latour reduces Jagannath's tale to an allegory of the modernist
iconoclast, he engages in conceptual reductionism. It is as if he is suggesting that whatever
insights can be found in Kannadan literature, they remain insufficiently epistemic because they
have yet to be conceptualized properly. This strategy of attribution belongs to a long history in
which: (1) non-Western inventions are marginalized; (2) the West is given credit for inventing
things that were already fabricated; and (3) complex postcolonial situations that have given rise
to numerous responses to, critiques of, and alternate configurations for, so-called "modernity"
are elided.32 In short, Latour proceeds as if textual violence were not an essential component of
analyzing Jagannath's tale as a model--as a minimal representation of the fundamental features
that account for the failure of ideology critique. Although models can be valuable for a number
of ends--particularly in the sciences, when they can strip away inessential details in order to
clarify the forces of a situation--using Bharathipura in this way undermines Murthy's literary
intervention: exposing the limits of critique in a specific context through a heavily
psychologized and historicized agent.
Latour's reduction of Murthy occurs as if he were unaware of the value of Said's distinction
between "theory" and "critical consciousness":
Theory, in short, can never be complete, just as one's interest in everyday life is
never exhausted by simulacra, models, or theoretical abstracts of it. Of course one
derives pleasure from actually making evidence fit or work in a theoretical scheme,
and of course it is ridiculously foolish to argue that "the facts" or "the great texts" do
not require any theoretical framework or methodology to be appreciated or read
properly. No reading is neutral or innocent, and by the same token every text and
every reader is to some extent the product of a theoretical standpoint, however
implicit or unconscious such a standpoint may be. I am arguing, however, that we
distinguish theory from critical consciousness by saying that the latter is a sort of
spatial sense, a sort of measuring faculty for locating or situating theory, and this
means that theory has to be grasped in the place and time out of which it emerges as
part of that time, working in and for it, responding to it; then, consequently, that first
place can be measured against subsequent places where the theory turns up for
use. The critical consciousness is awareness of the differences between situations,
awareness too of the fact that no system or theory exhausts the situation out of which
it emerges or to which it is transported.
(Said, The World 241-42, emphases added)
Whether Latour has read Said or should be expected to be well-versed in Said's terminology is
irrelevant here. The fact remains that when it comes to analyzing Western technoscientific
practice, Latour has long advocated that STS practitioners should conduct empirical case studies
that trace carefully how provisional identities and disseminated knowledge claims are stabilized
temporarily through networks of heterogeneous actors and "actants" who engage in complex
acts of translation and negotiation in real time. Indeed, when he discusses Western scientific
achievements and failures in his books and articles, Latour depicts networks as strong and weak
connections between people, objects, concepts, and events that cannot be specified
independently of the activity of those particular people, objects, concepts, and events. In other
words, when presenting the reader with an account of how Western knowledge is fabricated,
Latour always displays great sensitivity towards to the spatial orientation and the "traveling" of
theory that Said associates with "critical consciousness." By contrast, his reduction of
Jagannath's tale to an abstract model transforms the story into a saligram: it appears magically,
needs to keep the bloc of the so-called Christian Right happy. However, Latour does not address
the tendency towards complex and diverse responses around the globe to the explosion--even
though they are relevant to the sorts of issues that Latour seeks to clarify in the Critical
Inquiry article: that Critique seems to have given way to conspiracy theory, with the former
lending the latter its methodological tools; that Critique has become disabled by its own
modernist tendencies, imposing a tautological form of critical reasoning that occludes that
which it seeks to critique; and that the work for critical STS is to understand how that
historicized and contextualized fact--the "factish" in Pandora's Hope--actually strengthens
rather than weakens the ontology of the fact. Yet the very example of C-SPAN leads us to
understand how Latour's network fails not only to interact with the historical and cultural
dimensions of transnational media and communications systems, but also with the significant
beliefs that render the media's "facts" over-determined. It also prompts us to revisit the theme
addressed at the beginning of this essay, namely the relation between philosophy and STS. If
STS has differentiated itself from philosophy by taking itself to be a mostly descriptive
enterprise, then how does Latour justify his implicitly normative use of the factish? While
Latour appeals to the factish to show why Dalit beliefs should be respected, he fails to explain
why the factish does not likewise support the judgments of those who saw the Shuttle disaster as
a divine omen and sign of Judgment, and for those who cultivate such beliefs for political gain.
Works Cited
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. New York: Verso, 1991.
Chatterjee, Partha. "Caste and Subaltern Consciousness." Subaltern Studies 6. Ed. Ranajit Guha. Delhi:
Oxford UP, 1989: 169-209.
. "Religious Minorities and the Secular State: Reflections on an Indian Impasse." Public
Culture 8.1 (1995): 11-39. [CrossRef]
Elam, Mark. "Living Dangerously with Bruno Latour in a Hybrid World." Theory, Culture and
Society 16.4 (1999): 1-24. [CrossRef]
Ezekiel, Nissim, and Meenakshi Mukherjee. Another India: An Anthology of Contemporary Indian
Fiction and Poetry. New York: Penguin, 1990.
Hoy, David Couzens. Critical Resistance: From Poststructuralism to Post-Critique. Cambridge: MIT P,
2004.
Latour, Bruno. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge: Harvard UP,
1999.
. "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern." Critical
Inquiry 30.2 (2004): 225-48. [CrossRef]
Latour, Bruno, Peter Weibel, and Zentrum fr Kunst und Medientechnologie Karlsruhe. Iconoclash.
Cambridge: MIT P, 2002.
Murthy, U.R. Anantha, and P. Sreenivasa Rao. Bharathipura: Modern Indian Novels in Translation.
Madras: Macmillan India, 1996.
Nagaraj, D.R. "Introduction." Bharathipura. Ed. U.R. Anantha Murthy. Madras: Macmillan India,
1996: vii-xvi.
Ray, Amit. Negotiating the Modern: Orientalism and Indianness in the Anglophone World. New York:
Routledge, 2007.
Rushdie, Salman. "Life and Letters: Damme, This Is the Oriental Scene for You! An Introduction to
Indian Fiction." The New Yorker 23-30 Jun 1997: 50-57.
Said, Edward W. Reflections on Exile and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2000.
. The World, the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture.
Eds. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1988. 271-316.
Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford UP,
1985.
Notes
thinks not only about ideology, but also about subjectivity and social reality" (223).
Although Latour's initial reflections on Jagannath appear at the end of Pandora's Hope, they
end up playing so dominant a role in his later thinking that he contextualizes the tale as being
"at the origin" of his Iconoclash show (Iconoclash 474).
13. In order to address the violence done to native forms of belief, Latour invents the concept
of the "factish." For more on the factish, see Srinivas Aravamudan, Tropicopolitans:
Colonialism and Agency, 1688-1804, Post-Contemporary Interventions (Durham: Duke UP,
1999).
14. While this lack of attribution may be deliberate, a playful conjoining of binaristic
opposition between fact and fiction, it risks mimicking long-standing Orientalist approaches
that elevated literary texts over practices "on the ground." This disparity becomes the basis
for the reification of a philosophical Hinduism that bears little resemblance to those many
forms in practice throughout India today. See Ray 36-50.
15. Jagannath's name is transliterated in the 1996 translation as Jagannatha. This renaming
reflects contemporary efforts by linguists to more accurately render Indian spoken
vernaculars into English. For example, the city of Calcutta has recently been renamed
Kolkata. This also holds for saligram and shaligrama.
16. See Ezekiel and Mukherjee. The collection is composed of English translations that
appeared in the magazineVagartha, published out of Delhi between 1973 and 1979. The
editors note that the magazine's purpose was to "search for whatever seemed worth reading
and talking about in contemporary Indian literature" (14).
17. Perhaps the most celebrated literary figure who has chosen to forsake literary expression
in the colonizer's language is Ngugi wa Thiong'o. Ngugi's English-language novels on
colonialism in Kenya, such as A Grain of Wheat(1967), made him well known throughout
Africa and the World. He renounced the colonizer's language after being imprisoned by
Daniel Arap Moi's authoritarian government in the early 1980s. Since that time he has
produced extensive critical work in English, but has chosen to compose literary and aesthetic
pieces in Gikuyu. Ngugi has advocated a return to indigenous language in order to produce
African literature, as opposed to "Afro-European" literature. See Ngugi wa
Thiong'o, Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African
Literature(Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1986).
18. Recent scholarship has questioned the cohesiveness of "Hinduism" as a religious body,
suggesting that the categorization occurs as a result of European ideas and expectations as to
what "religion" is supposed to be. Richard King offers a fine overview of these recent
debates; see his Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and "the Mystic
East" (London: New York: Routledge, 1999), Chapter Five, "The Myth of Modern
Hinduism."
19. The earliest description of the temple and its festival by a European appears in the 1321
travelogue of the Italian Franciscan Friar, Odoric of Pordenone. See Odorico and Henry
Yule, The Travels of Friar Odoric, Italian Texts and Studies on Religion and Society (Grand
27. Spearheaded by Gandhi, the struggle to overcome caste discrimination has been
addressed by every major political and intellectual figure in India. If the inclusion of pariahs
into the village is the condition for an equitable and just India, the absence of Dalit
consciousness emphasizes the flaws of bourgeois modernity in India.
28. The universalist aspirations of realist narrative in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
were instrumental in the development of the novel. See Ian Watt's classic The Rise of the
Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding (Berkeley: U of California P, 2001). See
also Elizabeth Ermarth, Realism and Consensus in the English Novel (New York: Columbia
UP, 1998). For the connection between modern nationalism and realist modes of narrative in
the novel, see Anderson 23-34.
29. The political theorist and Subaltern historian Partha Chatterjee presents a similar line of
thought. He shows how "normative" categories of the liberal nation-state have been recast in
light of postcolonial exigencies. His 1995 article, "Religious Minorities and the Secular
State: Reflections on an Indian Impasse," argues that minority discourse, in certain instances,
might need to refuse entry into "reasonable" discourse. In such instances, he advises a
disciplined politics of toleration. An extensive body of Dalit scholarship has emerged in the
last generation, spurred no doubt by the troubling experiences of minority cultures in South
Asia, as well as by the rise of postcolonial studies. In Castes of Mind, Nicholas Dirks offers a
comprehensive account of the categorization of caste during the colonial era, explaining
particularly how it was integrated into the development of bourgeois Indian modernity.
SeeCastes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (Princeton: Princeton UP,
2001). Debjani Ganguly's ethnography of the ex-untouchable Mahars in western India forms
the basis for an argument that deconstructs the totality of caste structure, insisting upon caste
as heterogenous and variegated categories that cannot be encompassed by totalizing
narratives of modernity. See Caste, Colonialism and Counter-Modernity (New York:
Routledge, 2005).
30. See Edward W. Said, Reflections on Exile and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard UP,
2000).
31. Tejaswini Naranjana provides an excellent analysis of alternative modernities in her
reading of gender and nationalism among Trinidadian Indians. See "'Left to the Imagination':
Indian Nationalisms and Female Sexuality in Trinidad," Alternative Modernities, Ed. Dilip
Parameshwar Gaonkar (Durham: Duke UP): 248-71.
32. Of course, the terrain outlined in points I and II is the subject of Edward Said's classic
study, Orientalism. While that work provides a broad analysis of how an Orient comes to be
represented through the imperialist imaginations of European scholars, it is in later works
that Said offers systematic approaches to remedying the problem of Eurocentrism in
contemporary scholarship.
Copyright 2008 PMC and the Author
Postmodern Culture > Volume 18, Number 2, January 2008