why, when, where and by whom has this new
knowledge paradigm been developed? (See also
Slater, 1998: 648.) This suggests not only a parti-
cular spatialized history but also one inflected by
issues of social and political power in the aca-
demy. Following some initial definitions, the
chapter therefore begins by addressing questions
in the geography (as well as history and socio-
logy) of knowledge. What are the spatial, political
and social conditionsaccounting for both the pro-
duction and the consumption of postcolonial
studies? How have meanings and values that con-
struct the world we know as postcolonial (includ-
ing the intellectual practices, cultures and social
networks that constitute ‘postcolonial studies’, if
not actual postcolonial conditions) become estab-
lished and institutionalized? Other than new elec-
tronic communication technologies, what do
these social and intellectual movements have in
common with, for example, the global indigene-
ity movements where worldwide connections
have been made between what were once highly
localized struggles of indigenous peoples?TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTS‘Postcolonialism’ is frequently used in the
literature in a relatively loose way to refer to
phenomena in both the postcolony and the
postmetropolis. In this chapter, I conform with
Loomba’s (1998: 6) definition and adopt a more
precise spatial conception that highlights the distri-
bution of power. Imperialism (or neo-imperialism)
refers to a phenomenon that originates in the
metropolis; what happens in the colonies, as a
result of imperial domination and control, is
colonialism, or neocolonialism.
Similar variability exists in the literature con-
cerning the term’s periodization. Ashcroft et al.
state that ‘post-colonialism deals with the effects
of colonization [sic] on cultures and societies
and has generally had a clearly chronological
meaning designating the post-independence
period’ (1998: 186), the meaning adopted here.
However, ‘post-colonialism as it has been
employed in recent accounts has been primarily
concerned to examine the processes and effects
of, and reactions to, European colonialism from
the sixteenth century up to and including the neo-
colonialism of the present day’ (1998: 188), that
is, from the moment colonization began (see also
Ashcroft, 2001). The distinction between post-
colonial and postimperial can also be ambivalent,
according to the positionality and location of the
author. Describing London as a (technically)
postimperial city (King, 1990) foregrounds itsearlier imperial role without necessarily invoking
imperial contexts. For postcolonial migrants from
Jamaica who live in London, however, it may be
seen as postcolonial. As Australian Jane Jacobs
points out, ‘in settler dominions like Australia, it
is the colonist who is imperialist’ (1996: 37), and
historical references to the British colonial empire
(Sabine, 1943) are common.
As colonialism impacts the metropolitan society
and culture as much as it does the colonial (if not
in the same ways) it is clear that, while distin-
guishable, the phenomena (and their analysis) are
inseparable. No discussion of the facts of race,
space and place in the historically imperial,
postimperial or neo-imperial city, such as Paris or
Brussels, is complete without reference to the colo-
nial, postcolonial or neocolonial city of Algiers or
Kinshasa (Driver and Gilbert, 1999; Jackson and
Jacobs, 1996; King, 1990; Yeoh, 2001). Theories
of the postcolonial, as also of globalization or the
world system, envisage the singular nation-state as
an inappropriate unit of analysis.
While the bulk of the literature restricts the
scope of the paradigm to the impact of European
imperialisms between the periods stated,
Sidaway’s (2000: 596) valuable essay reconsid-
ers ‘different and diverse demarcations’ of the
term, exploring the possibility of extending the
scope to the ‘multiplicity of postcolonial condi-
tions’, and investing a wider meaning in the oft-
stated comment that ‘postcolonialism doesn’t
describe a single condition’ (Dirks, 1992;
Loomba, 1998; McClintock, 1992). As much of
Europe has been subject to imperial rule, he con-
siders the use of the analytical paradigm for
Roman, Hapsburg, Ottoman, English, French
and other empires in Europe, as also for the
Soviet successor states and ex-Yugoslav
republics, and develops a suggestive categoriza-
tion of multiple postcolonial conditions. These
include colonialisms, quasi-colonialisms and
neocolonialisms; second, internal colonialisms
(see also McClintock, 1992); and third, break-
away settler colonialisms. Whether addressing
issues of identity, the ethnic and racial composi-
tion of societies, political and spatial organiza-
tion, architectural culture, language or other
cultural phenomena, these categories have obvi-
ous analytical utility.CRITIQUES OF THE
‘POSTCOLONIAL’The most trenchant critique of the ‘postcolonial’
is probably that of McClintock, who argued that382 AFTER EMPIRE3029-ch20.qxd 03-10-02 4:54 PM Page 382