Seodial F. H. Deena
Canonization, Colonization, Decolonization: A Comparative Study of Political and Critical Works by Minority Writers
New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Pp. 228. $32.95

Reviewed by R. S. Krishnan

As the title suggests, Seodial F. H. Deena's purpose in this study is to "explore the politics and perspectives of the canonical-colonial literatures. The overall intention is three-fold: to demonstrate how the canon and colonialism serve similar purposes, namely to exploit and oppress through marginalization; to illustrate the process of decolonization by post-colonial writers and the difficulties such writers face; and, to indicate the subtleties of cultural imperialism in the process of decolonization" (6). Furthermore, the "book's intention," Deena claims in his preface, "is to bridge the racial, sexual, cultural, class, philosophical, and political gaps, that are the sources of much of humanity's suffering. The text is written in simple and critical language for relevance to scholars, students, and lay-people" (xii). Notions of the relation between canonicity of works and writers and the confluence, if not conspiracy, of marginalization and victimization on the basis of race, class, and gender are here envisaged as a basis for the argument advanced.

Deena's book is divided into five chapters. The first two broadly focus on issues related to Deena's thesis, namely, "to explore the politics and perspectives of the canonical-colonial relationship as it is portrayed in canonical, colonial, and post-colonial literatures" (6). The last three extend his critique to include works, among others, by V. S. Naipaul (The Mimic Men), Jean Rhys (Wide Sargasso Sea), Joseph Conrad (Heart of Darkness), John G. Neihardt (Black Elk Speaks), Richard Wright (Native Son), and Alice Walker (The Color Purple) as examples of writers/works caught up in the politics and discourse of colonialism which they purport to attack, or who adroitly subvert such a discourse to "produce bodies of literature strong in quality, diverse in perspective, and rich in content and style" (6). The plausibility--and success--of such a wide-ranging approach depends upon a number of factors: first, the nuanced interpretation of the range of issues related to the politics of "postcolonialism" as a theoretical/historical/political subject; second, the analysis of the implications to the immediate purpose at hand; third, the strategy employed for relating the former to the latter; and, fourth, the relative weight assigned to the critique of postcolonialism as it applies to writers and works.

Deena's tendency, however, is to catalogue the issue from the point of view of a number of critics and theorists, so that his own argument is lost in the dense thicket of his references. His stance on the issue of canon, for example, is that "the strong support for the maintenance of the canon is the fear that it is highly racial," and that those who "argue that traditional American literature can and must continue to reflect only mainstream culture," do so "in order to maintain the purity and greatness of Western culture" (15). This is a generalization and simplification of a complex and contentious debate, and there are other such generalizations in the book.

Where he focuses on specific writers and texts, however, Deena often provides close readings and good insights, as, for example, when he suggests how "the colonial apparatuses act as agents of disorder and mimicry" (72) in Naipaul's The Mimic Men; how Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea may be examined in light of the "economic exploitation" of Antoinette; or, how the cross-cultural voices that underlie the presumed cultural study of Native Americans in John Neihardt's Black Elk Speaks make for a postcolonial reading of the work.

If the book's strength lies in the close readings of writers and works, its weakness lies in Deena's often polemical rhetoric, which frequently undercuts the subtle shadings of the critics he cites and the rather enormous but entirely submerged assumption grounding much of his argument. There is a sense of teleological closure and ontological truth investing his critique that depends on an implicit acceptance of the claims made by him, and his own remarkable rhetoric suggests he believes in the essential rightness of his stance: "Conrad had to be aware of the dominant ideology and perspective of colonialism, yet he has failed to offend the colonizer's sensibility. Rather, he has received canonization and tenure from the massive body of colonial criticism. Any minority who truly and meaningfully rebukes the establishment is in danger. Yet, Conrad enjoys the colonial pat on the shoulder from Western criticism. Is this because the entire West agrees and accepts the rebuke? I suspect not. Truth bites, and it encounters strong retaliation" (127).

One more thing needs to be said. The process of transforming a dissertation into a scholarly work is evolutionary, one that requires careful recalibration of the grounds of criticism and close attention to revision for a reconstituted audience. One wishes that the work had been edited more carefully--its overblown rhetoric, mixed metaphors, problems of spelling, and egregious errors of style and structure tend to undermine the import of its subject.

In his preface, Deena contends that "the progression in writing this book parallels its increased use of biblical language, images, and references" and that "biblical allusions also illustrate critical points and situations in this study," since "real and lasting answers to the problems of marginalization and oppression are in the appropriation of the words and truths of the Bible" (xii). The implicit irony of this assertion may be found on page 37: "Mis-appropriation of the master narrative of Christianity by the imperialist is a way of rationalizing and spiritualizing the evil of colonial exploitation."

Canonization, Colonization, Decolonization will be useful to the degree the reader is able to get beyond its rhetoric.