“Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the ‘National Allegory’” by Aijaz Ahmad is a piece in which Ahmad argues there is no validity in the Three Worlds Theory (Ahmad). He argues that by Jameson’s definition, first world nations embody capitalistic ideals, and second world nations have a socialist economic system. But the third world countries are a conglomerate of different ideals and phenomena. Moreover, he argues that literature developed from African, Indian, and Latin languages are incorrectly described as “Third World Literature”, and that in fact this description is polemical (Ahmad).
I think that overall, Jameson’s writing shows that he has some attitudes rooted in prejudice towards non-Caucasian ethnicities. In my opinion, his attitudes are a product of his environment. Fredric Jameson was a professor at Duke University and a prominent political Marxist theorist (Contemporary). He grew up in the United States (Contemporary). Large nations in the past that were predominantly white such as England or the United States believed conquering new lands and practicing imperialism/manifest destiny were important parts of how their nation would succeed. The British occupation of India is a prime example of how the English entered India and ruined the country. Aside from stealing resources like cotton and coal from India via railroad, there was a law prohibiting Indians and dogs from riding. The British were also notorious for dividing the Indian people whenever a sentiment of nationalism arose (Sahni). They would remind Indian citizens of their distinct religions by dividing them, causing nationalistic attitudes to dissipate and hatred towards other Indians to take its place (Sahni). By the time empires were done receiving all benefits they could from the countries they’d imperialize, the countries would be nearly destroyed. This destruction predisposes countries to be vulnerable to being “third-world”. Jameson’s attitude is likely a product of his environment, where his environment took pride in oppressing other nations in their imperialistic conquests.
Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. . Encyclopedia.com. 17 Aug. 2021 .” Encyclopedia.com, Encyclopedia.com, 5 Sept. 2021.
Ahmad, Aijaz. “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness.”
Sahni, Manmeet. “5 Ways the British Empire Ruthlessly Exploited India.” News | TeleSUR English, TeleSUR, 25 Apr. 2017.
I fully agree that Jameson’s perspective is painfully eurocentric and largely incorrect. Ahmad’s example of India as a third world that has all of the characteristics of a capitalist nation, yet is largely seen as a third world nation, is a compelling argument against this theory. I agree that Jameson is largely a product of his environment and certainly could have a prejudiced belief system in favor of caucasian/European nations. Your fact about the railroad restrictions for Indians and the forced division of Indians was new to me, but not surprising based on the British partition of India and Pakistan. In speaking about the first and third world, I wonder how the relations between different religious groups in India would differ if Britain had not increased divisions between them. How would religious relations in India be different without the British?
I haven’t done the reading yet because I wanted to get this backround before going into it, but I do recall reading about the English occupation of India before. It got me thinking how India might look today if it were not for England’s interference. Perhaps they could have been “First World” and benefited the whole world because of it. It also makes me wonder what America would be like if a foreign nation had invaded and messed things up early.
I also agree that Jameson’s writings are based on prejudiced thoughts and feelings towards non-eurocentric ethnicities. I think the idea of “Third World Literature” being from mainly African, Indian, and Latin American countries is inherently unfair and truly incorrect. I knew about England’s effects on India but to the extent that India could be such a highly regarded society (even though they already have many brilliant minds and ideas) if it wasn’t for British interference was somewhat new to me.
I agree with your take that Jameson’s writings are very prejudiced and Eurocentric. The very idea of a first, second, or third world country is very two dimensional way to label an entire country. This label invokes a picture in our minds when we hear it, but it says nothing of what the country actually is like or how it got that title. Jameson was definitely blinded by nationalism.
I agree that the evident eurocentricity of Jameson’s perspective was formed through his childhood and adult influences. I think that one thing we can all take away from this is that we need to question our prejudices and the assumptions about cultures we are not apart of. I do not know much about the British interference in India, but I have spent along time learning about the effects of Imperialism and the harmfulness of the term “Third World Country”. I often think about what many of these areas would have been like if left untouched, or perhaps what the United States would be like if we had been victims of a foreign nations. Even though we are all products of our environment, it is important to question what we are taught, and that is expressed clearly in the context presentation.
Just like Korran Fenner I believe that his writings are set in prejudice. I knew about the British and India but I never heard of “there was a law prohibiting Indians and dogs from riding”. This makes me think about a sign that I saw that read “No Irish No Blacks No Dogs”. Both examples (the sign and the law prohibiting Indians from riding) are comparing a different race/person to dogs. Essentially saying that person is as bad or worse than having a dog come into the establishment.
Jameson was clearly making statements from a position in which he inherited the benefits of the Third World Theory. Knowing the context of his origins helps establish his biased thinking in which he believes his nationalistic ideals are the correct ones. Some of these include believing people and things produced by “third world” nations are considered “other” or not of the same standard. Yet because he thrived in an already propped-up eurocentric environment he believes that it is superior. He has no problem enforcing ideas that continue to separate and divide nations that are viewed as “other” so it won’t “interfere” with his own inherited privileges. I see the connections that this blog points out to the racism that many non-white people have faced in these eurocentric flooded areas and how that continues to impact society’s view of the Third World Theory.
I agree with you! I find his writing to have a large amount of Eurocentric prejudism. I find it crazy to know that Jameson wrote his incredibly prejudice article only 35 years ago. It’s amazon and I am privileged to live in a society that frowns upon ideas and opinions such as his. I also did not know much about the British controlling India. I find this fact to be quite interesting. especially hearing that they controlled and divided parts of India. also I agree with your ending statement, how Jameson took pride of controlling countries and saying things that most country’s today would be ashamed to say. But, because of his devout pride of his country, he continues to have a great amount of predjucie when speaking about other countries.
I completely agree with you about the prejudice that was influenced by imperialism. I am from Taiwan, which is a place that had been colonized by Japan during World War Two. Most of the people from my grandparents’ generation are rooted in a bias thinking about everything from Japan is relatively good compared to other import goods. I am happy that I read your analysis of the background of Fredric Jameson, which will help me understand the article faster.
I found your post fascinating because you managed to touch on something that I think is extremely important when contextualizing Jameson’s views (within Ahmad’s criticisms, of course) and that is the idea that the Imperialistic nature of (specifically England) predominantly white government is to divide and conquer. This is done using the ideas that we have discussed earlier in the course (the One and the Other, for example) and I believe you begin to make that connection when you mention laws passed that banned Indians and dogs from using the railroad. This law and (whether intentionally or not can be up for debate) your connection to it shows how British citizens viewed those that they colonized — as that of dogs, or rather, as the Other. It was easy for the British to think about how they were “superior” because they were the “victors” and colonized this “new land” and the “barbarians” of the East were mongrels or less than human — on the level of dogs or other animals that were “less than”. I really enjoyed how your presentation picked up on that and I think this was very insightful!
I found your post interesting and I like how you added his prejudice views are from his environment. I thought this really helped me connect with why he had some of these views. I thought I learned a lot from this post especially the past between India and Britain. I did not know any of these events occurred and it was pretty shocking because I never viewed Britain to do something so cruel. I think with how much social media has grown over the years it has given people more access to share their prejudice thinking especially about China when COVID got to the United States. I still think that people still grow up in environments where prejudice is still being taught.
I agree with you and I also think that imperialistic conquests are really bad, and they brought wars and bad life to those countries. And these countries would even think they are in a higher level and won’t treat the people from poor countries. I also learned the law
of prohibiting Chinese and dogs in the history book. I also learned the “west centered theory”, it’s also a kind of unequal idea those countries have.
I think it is true that the environment has a huge impact on people and some people in it do not realize the rightness of it, and Jameson’s prejudice against non-whites is a product of the environment. No one is born to be a bad person. What matters is how to purify the environment and make people in the environment understand the truth. The damage that British colonization did to India was devastating. What would India have been like if it had not been invaded and its religious position changed? I think it would be much better than now.
Imperialism is a cruel act that many countries take apart of when they are the dominant power. Rather than caring for the people in that country, they take their recourses, and leave them out to dry. A lot of these actions are emphasized in war. A lot of countries and people change their morals and do stuff that they normally would not do. I thought the example Britain controlling India was a great example. Taking away people’s freedom of religion is despicable. I thought this post was very interesting because a lot of theses actions were being done not too long ago.
I completely agree that Jameson’s viewpoint on this subject is inaccurate and ultimately harmful to other societies. I like how you highlighted his environment in which he grew up which could somewhat explain the prejudice beliefs that he held. As you mentioned, Britian occupied India, in addition to many other countries, and left after they had used up all of their resources. We can still see how these places are still trying to recover from their colonization. I have always found it interesting how people such as Jameson can characterize a place to be “third world” but choose to impose their presence in these countries.
Jameson’s view is full of prejudice because he thinks from the perspective and standpoint of the third world, which depends on his living environment from childhood. At the same time, it can also show that he has some prejudiced ideas and concepts of his nation. This does not directly indicate that he is a bad person, but a stereotype. Each of us is proud of our country, but when talking about other countries, it is inevitable that some people will have some stereotypes. These are not necessarily correct, but most of them depend on the environment and experience in which we grew up.
I also believe that Jameson’s thinking was a product of his environment and through his stance of power he talked about “third world” as if he knew what the third world should be defined as (Through his terms). He also assumed that he knew the “correct” definition of what “third world literature” is and how it should be categorized. I think it’s interesting to think about people assuming the position of power and knowledge over other people who have actually lived and experienced those cultures, events, and upbringings.