< < <
Date Index > > > |
Empire and Ghandi by Threehegemons 19 March 2002 14:45 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
It is not only Africa that Hardt and Negri show only the most passing interest in. The following quote is also telling: "The perils of national liberation are even clear when viewed externally, in terms of the world economic system in which the 'liberated' nation finds itself. Indeed, the equation nationalism equals political and economic modernization, which has been heralded by leaders of numerous anticolonial and anti-imperialist struggles from Gandhi and Ho Chi Minh to Nelson Mandela, really ends up being a perverse trick...The very concept of a liberatory national sovereignty is ambiguous if not completely contradictory. While this nationalism seeks to liberate the multitude from foreign domination, it erects domestic structures of domination that are equally severe." (Empire, p. 132-133) It says a lot that Ghandi is lumped in among the 'heralds' of 'nationalism equals political and economic modernization'. This is something Ghandi actually wrote: "I do not believe that multiplication of wants and machinery contrived to supply them is taking the world a single step nearer its goal... I wholeheartedly detest this mad desire to destroy distance and time to increase animal appetites and go to the ends of the earth in search of their satisfaction. If modern civilization stands for all this, and I have understood it to do so, I call it Satanic." Apparently the prospect that some non-European leaders may have sought national liberation to be free from modernity, rather than to ape it, is unimaginable in the world of 'Empire'. Steven Sherman <Yet when Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri consider the continent at all, it is hoist by some petards of postmodernity and its hypercrises. Empire pours needed (although dialectical) scorn on those believing in the oxymoron of national liberation but then wishes its contemporary problems away. It is as if Africa and the rest of the "third world" had joined with the borderless multitude in advanced capitalist corners of the world. One has only to come down to earth to remember that the millions of African refugees constitute a qualitatively different realm of existence than that lived by those rendered borderless by jets and cyberspace. The latter's subjectivities are formed in the merging of superstructure and structure occurring when communications become a means of production, and their differences are sublimated by Internet expertise. Yet in Africa, we see the deep, deep crises of modernity deferred-but now, perhaps, accelerated, thus more disruptive than ever in our post-cold war era. Borderlessness in Africa is due to poverty, war, and famine and is subject to the mentalities of "tradition" (often invented, to be sure, but nevertheless counter to a strategy of Gramsci's "good sense") rather than a combination of supercool calculation and cyborgian connectivity. Does that mean that Africa (as always, we often end up thinking in spite of ourselves) is dependent on what the hyperadvanced multitude in the West decides for it? Is the discourse articulated in Empire yet another version, along with the various strands of development and underdevelopment theory over which we have pored in the past, yet another strand of academic "trickle-down"?>
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |