Post-Colonial Context Today

Post-colonial approaches of the differentiating characteristic in context lies in the fact that they analyze an intercultural encounter that develop in contexts marked by imbalances in power relations and that is where they manifest both their virtues and their flaws. His greatest contribution has been to bring to light the role of power in the production and reception of context and its uses. It is doubtful that post-colonial theories can be satisfactorily applied to other inter-lingual exchanges in which inequalities in power relations are minimal and there is a general tendency to underestimate the differences between the differences (post) colonial contexts and it is suggested that the expressions of resistance characteristic of this movement, usually purely textual, give evidence that it has an insufficient attention to secretarial system implicational circumstances, and that data-nothings post-colonial perspectives, by rejecting the reductionist appropriation of other. Cultures have fostered a certain type of objectification of difference, which is reflected in a somewhat pessimistic insistence on the fact that it is impossible to put oneself in the place of the other.

The issues of identity, representation and difference, which are central to any culture-its perspective framework, assume an accentuated and distinctive status in post-colonial studies. What characterizes this field is that it examines intercultural relations in contexts marked predominantly by an inequality of powers. In fact, context into the colonial condition has been described as “a general metaphor for the unequal power relationship that defines the condition of the colonized. As a result, the political dimensions of context are boldly raised, for example, context finds postcolonial translation theories as a means to provide “a way out of the textual totalized world and a return to practical experience, particularly when practical experience can make attractive appeals for engagement and action, as can be the situation of people struggling with disadvantaged positions. The Questions of engagement, action, and struggle are, indeed, central. Due to their complicity in the processes of colonial coercion, exploitation and administration, the problems of representation and interaction with the other acquire an opposition, character of confrontation.

The strengths and weaknesses of postcolonial approaches to context are found, but the ability to reshape one’s thoughts and actions into accepted forms. As this statement implies, language is not simply a colonial instrument. The very structures of control that define colonial domination are inscribed there. The correlation between language and culture is consistent with the context of culture and the principle of post-colonization and its impact on one’s own lifestyle. It is a matter of conscientiousness, the way in which aspects of politics that are decisive for the politics or the uniqueness of the techniques are pinpointed. The reason for the existence of context is that one may write a linguistic or cultural account of the accident? There is a list of cases in which the pansy system is “universal” and the question of the Occident has been answered. The exploitation of equivalence and the domestication of evidence is a simplification of the conveyance of the value of the center, but in which the principle of equal treatment? The reason for the existence of context is that one may write a linguistic or cultural account of the accident? There is a list of cases in which the male and female sexually suggestive or pansy system is “universal” and the question of the Occident has been answered. The exploitation of equivalence and the domestication of context is a simplification of the conveyance of the value of the center, but in which the principle of equal treatment?

Homi Bhabha builds up his theoretical tropes ‘mimicry’ and ‘hybridity’. He examines how the Indians responded to analogous projects of British colonial rule. They demanded some form of imitation of the British – their language, their religion and their customs. The strategy with which they escape these Euro-centric demands is the root of what defines Bhabha as mimicry. It is again a repetition with a twist, an imitation that appropriates the colonial discourse and places it in new contexts that would make it practically deviant and that the colonial text appears in an uncertain way. These original and inspiring conceptualizations have been significantly influenced by the specific cultural and political contexts on which they are based. In any case, a colonial strategy that focuses on discursive submission through translation and language teaching, and a colonial power that has no interest in adapting the colonialists to their own culture, but only to acquire their land, seize their land for material gain, and the colonizers did not even want to manage the colonized. Resistance in the language of power neglects of the socio-political background of the text points to the undoubtedly greatest problem of postcolonial studies. As mentioned above, postcolonial critics emphasized that language was not a neutral tool, but that translation could never be a purely technical activity. They insist that the wider framework of power relations, in which intercultural and inter-linguistic transfers take place, must always be taken into account. While their oppositional nature has sometimes leads to essential tendencies, their outcomes and methods still have significant capacity for other areas of translation, especially when asymmetric power relations play a dominant role though the greatest challenge in this context is to pay close attention to the differences in (post-) colonial contexts while maintaining a common focus based on the considerable commonalities and common causes of the critics of postcolonial contextual units.

*Hamid Rayhan, Poet & Fiction writer

 

 

Scroll to top