160 chapter four
Tabori’s central thesis, for instance, is that throughout history exiles
have made important, lasting contributions to their host countries in
a range of fields, including literature and art. If Said, in “Reflections
on Exile,” is at pains to debunk glorifications of exile and stresses its
mutilations instead, he too recognizes its creative potential. He fo-
cuses on the individual, lived experience of exile rather than its lit-
erary manifestation, extending his vision to the millions of displaced
people who are not famous poets, artists, scientists, dissidents, activists
and so on—not enough, though, to pacify Ian Buruma’s critique of
the devaluation of exile by postcolonial theory. More germane to the
present discussion, Said does note the major role exiles have played
in modern cultural production; and here Buruma concurs with him.
Joseph Brodsky, without glossing over exile’s horrors, points out that
it can stimulate the writing process, paradoxically intensifying one’s
experience of the native language from whose primary habitat one is
removed. Bevan, echoing Said’s terminology, shows that mutilation
and invigoration co-occur within single individuals. Similarly, accord-
ing to Eugene Eoyang, dépaysement—in the sense of disorientation—is
both a calamity and an opportunity. Exile and Creativity: Signposts, Travel-
ers, Outsiders, Backward Glances, edited by Susan Suleiman, and Creativity
in Exile, edited by Michael Hanne, constitute major contributions to
the discussion. The former came out of a 1996 special issue of Poet-
ics Today that expressly asks whether exile is a spur to creativity. The
essays in Exile and Creativity offer a resounding yes, centrally featur-
ing the unique benefit of distance after separation from one’s origins.
Contributor Svetlana Boym concludes that “estrangement is a survival
kit,” and “[exile] is not just a misfortune—it is also a cultural luxury.”
Hanne’s volume shows how the notion of exile has expanded since the
Second World War and the Cold War, and now encompasses ever-
growing numbers of nameless refugees and displaced people as well
as the high-profile intellectual experience; and how the expression of
creativity in exile avails itself of a range of different media, in addition
to (literary) language.^42
(^42) Tabori 1972: 12, Said 1984: esp 49-50, Brodsky 1990: 106-108, Buruma 2000
(see Teeuwen 2004 for an interesting response to Buruma 2001), Bevan 1990: 4,
Eoyang 1998: 219, Suleiman 1998, Boym 1998: 260, Hanne 2004. My emphasis on
exile’s creative potential doesn’t detract from the legitimacy of “demythologizing”
exile (Zhang Zhen 1999b: 64).