does postcolonialism matter anymore? ELIOT GARDEPE
What is the state of postcolonialism today? While once a hot topic within Western academic circles, postcolonialism as an idea and a project has faded from the foreground in discussions on the contemporary moment. Although there have yet to emerge any signs of the waning ramifications of colonial and imperialist practices, it seems no longer in vogue to continue to address issues that remain extremely relevant in the contemporary moment. What is needed is a new approach to the postcolonial problem, a method that is skillfully taken by Rowan Smith’s exploration of aesthetics and politics in his new work. In order to understand the state of postcolonialism today, however, a brief history of Paul Simon is required. Paul Simon’s 1986 album Graceland stylistically combines Americana with South African musical traditions with an earnest sensibility that seems oblivious to the cultural and political context of late 1980s Africa. On a surface level analysis the album partakes in a particular type of colonial capitalism by appropriating elements of isicathamiya, mbube, and mbanqanqa and exploiting African musicians to create a commercially successfully product.* A deeper inspection, however, of Graceland’s connection to South Africa reveals that its commercial success is only one part of its story. There is no doubt a large amount of questionable appropriation and thematic choices made in Graceland.† Yet there is no question that indigenous and non-white South African music was suppressed and had little to no exposure outside of certain South African communities.‡ This dichotomy is at the forefront of Smith’s I Have Reason To Believe We All Will Be Received in Graceland, which displays Graceland clearly entrapped in the classical postcolonial dilemma first put forth by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in her seminal essay “Can the Subaltern Speak?”§ Spivak’s own conclusion is that there is no way in which to speak for the Subaltern without committing a type of colonialism yet she believes, despite this double bind, that such actions must be taken nonetheless. It is within this unsolvable problem that the Smith asks the viewer to consider passive colonialism and cultural expression within the contemporary postcolonial context. This implicit colonialism exhibits itself as a theme in Smith’s work through subtle references to popular culture and history that relate anecdotally to his personal experience. While I Have Reason To Believe We All Will Be Received in Graceland points to the past as a method of historical reflection, The Official Restaurant of the South African Family (correspondence) looks to the present to express the effects of that history on the present. The Official Restaurant of the South African Family (correspondence) demonstrates the type of mindset that is typical in the postcolonial setting in which the response to Smith’s inquiry into the Spur brand lacks any sense of self-
48
awareness. Smith, in attempting to understand the aestheticopolitical realities of a well-established South African company, provides the viewer with a glimpse into post-apartheid culture as well as a commentary on globalization. The irony of using a caricature an oppressed indigenous group’s culture and image as focus of the Spur brand’s aesthetic vision within the context of analogous colonial histories is clearly lost upon the Executive Chairman of the Spur Group LTD.** Furthermore the use of globalization as a justification for cultural colonialism provides an insight into how colonialist practices continue and remain, for the most part, critically unchallenged.†† Smith, through a dark humor originating from the implicit irony presented in The Official Restaurant of the South African Family (correspondence), puts into question the passive acceptance of colonialism within the postcolonial subject and society. However unlike I Have Reason To Believe We All Will Be Received in Graceland, Smith chooses not to remain ambiguous and instead responds to this dialog powerfully with the partner piece The Official Restaurant of the South African Family. Hinting at the shape of the Spur logo, The Official Restaurant of the South African Family speaks volumes about the state of victims of colonialism in the contemporary moment. The Native American figure is effaced; an allegorical technique that distinctly criticizes how quickly colonialism and racial oppression has faded from the global collective memory. While directly referencing the colonial history of the United States and South Africa under apartheid, it goes further to critique both the dominance and hubris of the Western world. As with I Have Reason To Believe We All Will Be Received in Graceland, Smith returns thematically to the colonialism we partake in, both actively and passively, in our everyday lives. Over the course of his oeuvre, Smith has examined very different aspects of the history of South Africa as well as the postcolonial South African experience. While his work remains closely tied to an introspective and personal understanding of the past in relation to the present, it is here, however, where he has taken a political turn. It seems more and more that the role of the contemporary artist is no longer solely focused on the production of aesthetic objects created for the gallery circuit and, instead, has become a method in which to reshape the political discussions and commentaries of our increasingly apolitical world.‡‡ Smith’s new work has clearly risen to this challenge of promoting but remaining critical of the postcolonial situation.
* Graceland reached number three on the US Billboard 200 as well as topped the UK Album Chart. It won the 1986 Grammy Award for Album of the Year and the title track won the 1987 Grammy Award for Record of the Year. It is platinum certified in the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands.
† The songs I Know What I Know, Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes, Under
African Skies, and Homeless are the most obvious examples.
‡ This is both because of the ramifications of apartheid in South Africa as well as the cultural boycott imposed by the rest of the world on South Africa in response to apartheid.
§ The issue is that there are groups of people (indigenous, racial, cultural, etc.) who are so oppressed that they themselves have no outlet in which to express themselves and make their situation known. However, speaking for these groups or trying to provide a method of which to give voice to their oppression is in and of itself a colonial act. Thus the postcolonial, in trying to rectify the ramifications of colonialism, becomes a colonialist. For more, see Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty.
Can the Subaltern Speak?. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988. Print.
** “As far as the décor was concerned, that carried on becoming more and more colourful and more and more Red Indian in character.”
†† . “ I think what has happened is that the circle has been closed now that we in South Africa are part of the global community. (Which we weren’t before). So what was initially an anomaly is now less of an anomaly and our brand is accepted as such by people who have grown up with it, such as yourself and others, i.e. they do not question its “get up”, it is what it is.”
‡‡ This is meant, of course, in the Arendtian sense. See Arendt, Hannah.
The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958. Print.
49