Visuality, Postcoloniality, Ethnicity, Sexuality
Chapter One. Rey Chow Reading Postcolonialism and Poststructuralism
As more than one reader of Rey Chow has observed, the challenges and values of Chow’s work arise because it has such a comprehensive and active relationship with the very activity of reading. James Steintrager puts it like this:
[The way that] Chow constructs her analyses...suggests an ongoing passion for close reading and interpretation, albeit mingled with a skepticism about institutional interests, the prestige of literary studies, and the values of close reading. She loves theory in a way that can appear alarmingly irreverent to the disciple because she reads it less for what it is—for what it reveals—as for what it does. (Steintrager 2010: 300)
Steintrager’s intermingling of two putative opposites—reading (and, what is more, reading Theory) and doing—is significant. For, these two terms (reading and doing; theorizing and doing) are all too easily opposable, and they frequently acquire the values of passivity to activity and, hence, negative/inferior to positive/superior. The consequences of such oppositions become apparent when faced with the set of questions that are almost begged by the very term “Theory.” For what is the object of “Theory”? What is the other of “Theory”? Or, indeed, what is the point of “Theory”? There are certain answers that are almost ineluctably preprogrammed into such questions. These answers include highly valuing terms like practice, action, doing, reality, etc.—all of which seek to consign “Theory” to the category of the inferior and the less important.
However, Steintrager’s formulation suggests...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.