The Nature of Political Theory

222 The Nature of Political Theory

culture, gender, or class. Subaltern studies therefore involves the investigation of the
perceptions and experience of these subjugated groups. It also attempts to recap-
ture the experiences of those who had been silenced by colonial rule. As indicated,
Western colonial history is seen to distort or mystify what actually took place under
colonial rule (Gandhi 1998: vii). The second aspect on postcolonial writing is (as
mentioned) Edward Said’s work, particularly his workOrientalism(Said 1978). The
latter book focuses, like subaltern studies, on colonial ideology, which is seen to
embody power (in the largely Foucaultian sense), particularly in writing about the
orient. The discursively constructed Orient implies, for Said, power over and within
knowledge. This fabricated ‘Orient’ configures the attitudes and perceptions of par-
ticularly the subjugated peoples. Said uses the writings of both Gramsci and Foucault
here.^19 Foucault is crucial to the view of the power of orientalism as an impersonal
force underpinning knowledge. Gramsci is used to root the arguments in a more
materialist and emancipatory analysis.
The third postcolonial argument concerns the comparatively recent Asian values
debates.^20 The core of the, by now familiar, argument is that all forms of universalism
(e.g. human rights discourse) are, once again, seen as part of a localized parochial
Western narrative. As one recent exponent argues, ‘Because cultural context is integral
to the formulation and implementation of all state polices, including those that have
clear human rights consequences, [thus] detailed and credible knowledge of local
cultures is essential for the effective promotion and protection of human rights in any
society’ (Abdullah A. An-Na’im in Bauer and Bell (eds.) 1999: 147). Liberal univer-
salism, and the like, are seen therefore as intrinsically expressions of Western cultures.
Most liberal commentators however fail to see this basic point and blithely assume
the rational superiority of their own perspective. As Charles Taylor comments, on this
latter standpoint, ‘An obstacle in the path to...mutual understanding comes from
the inability of many Westerners to see their culture as one amongst many’ (see Taylor
in Bauer and Bell (eds.) 1999: 143). For such Asian values proponents, it is important
that Western commentators should be aware that Asian (and other societies) have not
gone through the same historical trajectory as the West.^21 There may well be therefore
very different sets of values concerning morality, legality, religion, and politics, which
we neglect at our peril.^22
There is a relatively clear pattern of argument in all the above views. Anthropology,
ethnography, postcolonial theory (as a broad category), all privilege alterity, differ-
ence, and the local indigenous narrative over the universal or global. They see their
task to ‘provincialize’ Europe and North America. Difference, in this context, embod-
ies both a critical challenge to universalism (of all types)—the recurrent criticism
being that such universalism is a shield for another localized national narrative—
and a more suppressed claim concerning emancipation. The latter involves a more
obscure point—that recognized and respected difference equates with emancipation.
However, this leaves open the following question: if the basic acknowledgement of
difference actually constitutes some kind of advance or liberation, what precisely
does this mean? What meaning should we attribute to liberty here? If it is a localized
meaning it is irrelevant (since it would have no universal sense), yet if it is universal it