They say post-modernism and liberal identity politics have been a direct consequence of it and they also use all these terms interchangeable. The Idea is that Saiids view of the east and the west opened the gates for post-modernism and liberal identity politics and that thus all post-colonial thought shall be treated like it's radioactive.
I asked them directly about it because i also couldn't understand.
I think it is fun if they say that Said's 1978 published book is responsible for postmodernism (and identity politics) which are depending on what you look at roughly 40 years older. Even Hasan's The Dismemberment of Orpheus: Toward a Postmodern Literature is written in 1971. Postmodernism is a huge field and contains structuralists like Levi-Strauss, the Marxist! Althusser, Lacan (the Zizek psychoanalyst, there is the real, the imaginary, the symbolic), then there are post-structuralists like Foucault (things are like prisons, Baudrillard (simulacra and simulacrum, we can't really tell the difference between simulation, simulated and reality, the difference doesn't matter anymore, stuff is hypernormal), Deleuze, Derrida, Bourdieu. A lot of the thoughts of them can be reduced to: The thing doesn't matter so much, what matters more how it differentiates from other things and is not them.
Then there are deconstructivists (also Derrida) and others.
The point is that while a lot of moves into wrong directions (might) have happened a critique as shallow might actually mean people don't really want to dive deep (which is understandable). To just put modern/contemporary postmodernism and Said onto one level is just shallow and seems to be used as tool to not integrate with intersectional movements and such.
deleted by creator
They say post-modernism and liberal identity politics have been a direct consequence of it and they also use all these terms interchangeable. The Idea is that Saiids view of the east and the west opened the gates for post-modernism and liberal identity politics and that thus all post-colonial thought shall be treated like it's radioactive.
I asked them directly about it because i also couldn't understand.
I think it is fun if they say that Said's 1978 published book is responsible for postmodernism (and identity politics) which are depending on what you look at roughly 40 years older. Even Hasan's The Dismemberment of Orpheus: Toward a Postmodern Literature is written in 1971. Postmodernism is a huge field and contains structuralists like Levi-Strauss, the Marxist! Althusser, Lacan (the Zizek psychoanalyst, there is the real, the imaginary, the symbolic), then there are post-structuralists like Foucault (things are like prisons, Baudrillard (simulacra and simulacrum, we can't really tell the difference between simulation, simulated and reality, the difference doesn't matter anymore, stuff is hypernormal), Deleuze, Derrida, Bourdieu. A lot of the thoughts of them can be reduced to: The thing doesn't matter so much, what matters more how it differentiates from other things and is not them.
Then there are deconstructivists (also Derrida) and others.
The point is that while a lot of moves into wrong directions (might) have happened a critique as shallow might actually mean people don't really want to dive deep (which is understandable). To just put modern/contemporary postmodernism and Said onto one level is just shallow and seems to be used as tool to not integrate with intersectional movements and such.