In What Was African American Literature? Kenneth Warren provides a concise historical context for defining and understanding African American literary production and, moreover, provocatively announces its death. For him, African American literature was specifically “a postemancipation phenomenon that gained its coherence as an undertaking in the social world defined by the system of Jim Crow segregation, which ensued after the nation’s retreat from Reconstruction” (1). While acknowledging that his contention that African American literature has eroded since the “legal demise of Jim Crow” goes against much of the scholarship in African American and transatlantic studies, which “has sought to justify taking a longer historical view of African American literary practice,” Warren nevertheless asserts that “[t]o insist that African American literature ‘was’ is [also] to raise the question of what all of this ongoing production ‘is’” (3, 4). His research is animated by the belief that there have been fundamental sociopolitical and cultural changes that contest claims that “Jim Crow has not ended” and by extension “equally pernicious manifestations of racism” exist today; Warren argues that even though racism has not disappeared, pointing out its endurance “is not to make a particularly profound social observation or to engage in trenchant political analysis” (5). For him, historical periodization of African American literature functions as a valuable interpretive tool that allows us not only to recognize “some of the factors that almost unavoidably oriented African American literary practice during the Jim Crow era,” but also enables us to examine the critical possibilities that open up if we recognize that African American literature “was” (9-10).
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
In The Semblance of Identity Christopher Lee examines the ongoing debate in Asian American studies over identity politics and its political efficacy; he claims that rather than presenting “an argument for or against identity and identity politics,” his “aim is to explore the consequences of the ‘post-identity’ turn” (3). Lee approaches the issue of identity (and post-identity) in Asian American studies by tracing what he describes as “the ‘idealized critical subject,’” a figure that “operates throughout Asian American literary culture and cultural criticism as a means of providing coherence to oppositional knowledge projects and political practices” (4). By working through Theodor Adorno’s conception of “aesthetic semblance” as “the kinds of knowledge that artworks offer by virtue of their appearance and illusory coherence,” Lee establishes a parallel between aesthetics and identity (17). He tracks the idealized critical subject as an aesthetic figure that manifests in Asian American literary productions and demonstrates in the unraveling of the form and content of these texts the “theoretical structures of race and identity” (17). Ultimately, while Lee’s work does demonstrate how representations of Asian American identity have always been unstable, his focus on the idealized critical subject reveals how despite its flaws, identitarian thinking continues to persist even amidst the proliferation of anti- and post-identity discourses.