Journal of American Studies of Turkey
10 (1999) : 93-95.Book Review
Postmodernism and the Other: The New Imperialism of Western Culture, by Ziauddin Sardar. (1988) 1998, 346 pages. U.S. $ 21.95 plus postage and handling. Available from: Pluto Press, 345 Archway Road, London N6 5AA, United Kingdom; and 22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166-2012, USA.
Postmodernism is generally viewed as a critique of modernism, elitism, and imperialism. It is considered to have a liberating influence on the oppressed and marginalized peoples of the non-west or Other cultures. Ziauddin Sardar strongly opposes this view. He maintains that although postmodernism at first appears to present to the Other legitimate forms of protest against the excesses of “suffocating modernity, instrumental rationality and authoritarian traditionalism” (13-14), it in fact does nothing other than appropriate “the history and identity of non-western cultures as an integral facet of itself, colonizing their future and occupying their being” (13).
The book consists of an introduction and eight chapters. In the introduction, Sardar writes that the postmodern world is being built by the mass media, and the glue that binds this so-called “pluralistic,” “impersonal,” equalitarian, liberal, and global world is the postmodern economy (8-15). Yet in the chapters that follow he discusses postmodernism not as a new state or condition of being, associated with contemporary information technologies and economy, but as another Western method and project which seeks to justify the continued exploitation, oppression and annihilation of non-western cultures, of the Other.
“The main thesis of this book,” he writes, “is that far from being a new theory of liberation, postmodernism, particularly from the perspective of the Other, the non-western cultures, is simply a new wave of domination riding on the crest of colonialism and modernity” (13). Quoting postmodern scholars and critics such as Walter Anderson, Jean Baudrillard, Paul Feyerabend, Charles Jencks, and Jean-François Lyotard, Sardar points to those features of postmodernism that are said to bring about a transition from modernity to postmodernity. These features are: the breakdown of old ways of belief, “the birth of global culture,” the emergence of a conflict about the nature of reality and social truth, and the ultimate freedom of choice that these bring about. As the old foundationalist, authoritarian forms of belief are deconstructed, humankind is set free from all prejudices, categorizations, and therefore “othering,” and is thus presented with an almost infinite array of realities. In the new, pluralistic, global culture “we are all equal . . . all realities are on a par with each other, all truth is relative, and all objectivity is but a charade” (23). Human experience, then, is also ahistorical, regulated not by reality but by simulations, models, pure images or representations; and from a postmodern perspective, the pain, suffering and the death of the Other is unreal. Furthermore, the postmodern “we” is not a pluralistic, global we: it applies to those in North America and Europe who are genuinely confronted by choices about lifestyles, and “realities.” Those enslaved by poverty and trapped in an oppressive modernity do not have the luxury of postmodern freedom of choice: circumstances dictate their lifestyles and reality. According to Sardar, contrary to general belief, “postmodernism is ravenously monolithic. . . . Its language, logic, analytical grammar, are intrinsically Eurocentric and shamelessly cannibalistic of Others” (20).
Sardar maintains that the cultural resistance to postmodernism can come only from non-western traditions. In the last chapter of the book he draws a distinction between tradition and traditionalism. He asserts that “Tradition is the summation of the absolute frame of reference provided by the values and axioms of a civilisation . . . : patterns of organization, ideas, lifeways, techniques and products” (273). Traditionalism, on the other hand is a response to external pressure. It is passive but retains at least the formalistic aspects of tradition. It can “become ossified, oppressive and backward-looking . . . by offering the past as the ultimate answer to contemporary problems” (274). In other words, “tradition is a way of knowing; traditionalism deals only with the imperishable content of what is known” (274). Sardar states that the urge of every culture is to be true to its Self. After explaining how the Islamic tradition, for example, can provide a way out from postmodern effacement for Muslim “Others,” the book ends with the assertion that “it is this unfathomable urge . . . that will lead to the return of dynamic tradition” in the non-western societies, saving them from “the invincible, life-denying forces of postmodernism” (291).
There are many flaws and contradictions in Sardar’s arguments but three in particular need to be pointed out. First, while discussing in the main body of the book the dilemmas and contradictions inherent in postmodernism, Sardar presupposes that the postmodern condition is the outcome of postmodern thought. In the first chapter, however, he states that the postmodern condition is built by mass media and glued together by postmodern economy. Second, in his insistance on the salvaging role played by tradition for non-western societies, he seems to overlook the powerfully effective role played by western information technologies and the inevitable change they bring about in the perception of tradition and the self for non-westerners. Finally, Sardar’s apology for Islam, and his description of “the Islamic tradition” is based on his own understanding of the Islamic dogma. He maintains, for example, that the classical Muslim scholar is humble and tolerant because the scholar admits that all human knowledge is limited, that no one person, group or institution possesses the absolute truth, and that “any individual opinion is always open to re-examination” (290). The views of the many contemporary Muslim scholars and the “Islamic traditions” currently observed in Muslim societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afganistan and Pakistan, however, bespeak a different story. In short, although Sardar’s critique of postmodernism is interesting and thought-provoking his proposal to the peoples of the non-west to counter the assaults of postmodernism is at best impractical and misleading.
Readers interested in postmodernism, colonialism, postcolonialism, and contemporary culture may find the book interesting to read.