In: National Literatures in the Globalised World. - Nitra: UKF, 2008. - ISBN 978-80-8094-308-0. - S. 44-52.
Simona Hevešiová
Abstract:
Despite its central position within Western literary studies, its enormous popularity among international readership and the critical acclaim it has gained in recent years, postcolonial literature still remains an enigmatic arena in Slovak literary milieu. The author not only mentions some of the reasons for this unpleasant state but she also attempts to provide a pioneering analysis of the fundamental links between the historical, political, social and literary experience of the former colonies and the Slovak nation. By linking the experience of the colonized peoples and Slovak nation’s struggles for independence and self-determination (which were, of course, reflected in a fertile literary production), the article attempts to point at the relevance of the concept of postcolonialism in Slovak (academic) milieu.
The contemporary era of globalization, marked by the perpetual (and often contentious) confrontation of the universal and the particular, invigorates the momentousness of a profound intercultural communication. The contacts between national literatures with their unique artistic expressions have become more and more spontaneous, creating thus the opportunity for the establishment of a productive cooperation and an enriching dialogue. The imaginary space of the national literature has, of course, never been completely virginal since the stimuli from the outer literary and cultural environment had long ago pervaded the geographical boundaries. The recent period, however, provides a suitable occasion for an adamant uncovering of the so far undiscovered literary, cultural and also social connections.
Paradoxically, postcolonial literature which keeps impressing and fascinating both literary critics and the international readership since the 1970s, has not (from incomprehensible reasons) been discovered either by Slovak academics or by literary critics so far. Despite the scarce (almost nonexistent) attempts of Slovak scholars to incorporate at least one exemplum of this type of literature into their course syllabi[1] or to start the inevitable professional discussion, it still remains to be the enigmatic and mysterious terra nova in our literary milieu. The average Slovak reader who is not familiar with the source language of postcolonial writing is left at the mercy of the publishing houses which, however, tend to ignore this literary phenomenon to a large extent. Of course, the assertion that no postcolonial book has ever been translated into the Slovak language would be misleading though, in fact, not so far from the truth. We do have translations of Salman Rushdie’s Fury, Nadime Godimer’s July’s People, Arundhati Rhoy The God of Small Things, Thiong’o’s Grain of Wheat or Soyinka’s The Interpreters but we still lack translations of such crucial postcolonial texts as for example Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, Jamaica Kincaid’s Lucy, Zadie Smith’s White Teeth or On Beauty, Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, not to speak about Jhumpa Lahiri’s debut Interpreter of Maladies or her novel The Namesake.
The reasons for this unpleasant and unflattering state of our literary awareness and appreciation of these artistic phenomena may be seen as an unfortunate combination of several different factors. First of all, the exotic setting of postcolonial books or the seemingly irrelevant (for Slovaks) problems of the multicultural and multiracial Western metropolis may create a strong impression that this kind of literature presents such experiences which do not correspond with Slovak daily reality. Therefore, the mediocre reader would not be able to identify himself or herself with these books and their characters, nor would be interested in reading them. Secondly, one may not underestimate the power of money-gaining bestsellers which may lack the artistic quality but which, on the other hand, attract vast numbers of readers. The profit-oriented policy dominating the majority of Slovak publishing houses[2] thus results in a careful selection of books to be translated and published which often abandons relevant aesthetic criteria. Last but not least, one has to take into account the enormous influence of the Czech literary market which supplies Slovak bookstores competitively with its own translations which are still easily comprehensible for the vast majority of Slovak citizens.[3] To translate the same book in both languages would be regarded as redundant; in this case, one may only wonder why it is always the Czech translation to be published as the first one. On the whole, all of these factors (and there are undoubtedly many others) contribute to the relatively spread disinterest of Slovak publishing houses to offer Slovak translations of quality postcolonial writing to native readers.
The aim of this article, however, is neither to discuss nor to solve these problems. We are rather interested in exploring the links and analogies between the (post)colonial and Slovak (post)communist conditions which, in our opinion, share certain common features[4]. These historical, political, social, but also literary parallels represent the inevitable foundation for the establishment of a productive and valuable intercultural communication. We do not attempt to recreate the myth of universality here since we are aware of the fact that the realities and both the historical and political implications of the discussed cultures differ enormously. Nevertheless, the analysis and the following comparisons of the experiences of both the once colonized countries and the struggle of the Slovak nation for its own political independence together with the 40-year-long lasting Communist oppression, which have also affected the literary development and artistic representation, may indicate some quite surprising outcomes. We would like to use these theses as supporting arguments for our conviction that postcolonial literature has something to tell the Slovak reader as well.
Our opinion is also supported by the assertions of a distinguished American Professor of English and an expert on postcolonial fiction Steven Ekema Agbaw who helped to establish the postcolonial tradition in Slovak academic field at the Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia. In May 2006 the Department of English and American Studies at CPU organized the very first international colloquium focused on postcolonial writing entitled Aspects of Postcolonial Literature. This pioneering project intended to introduce the concept of postcolonial literature in Slovakia and to inspire Slovak scholars to explore the matter profoundly. In the introduction to the colloquium proceedings Agbaw explains the reasons for the implementation of postcolonial literary studies in Slovakia:
“The interest in postcolonialism in Central Europe is not simply academic. For a people who themselves are adjusting to life in a post-Soviet era the responses of Third world writers and other ethnic minorities to the experience of Western colonialism would seem quite relevant. Also, since the fall of the Berlin wall, scholars in Central Europe have become increasingly aware and interested in the changing demographics of Western European countries, now populated by large numbers of displaced people from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Middle East. With most of Central European countries becoming part of European Union, it is quite natural that literary scholars in this region should be interested in the new voices that are shaping English and American literary studies.” (2006, p. 7)
The historical and political background of both the colonial territories and Slovakia may serve as the starting point for our analysis. Since there are plenty of studies concerning different aspects of colonialism and they are deeply grounded in the (Western) humanities research, we would mention only those aspects that seem relevant to our examination of the congruencies with the Slovak experience. It is not our aim to provide a thorough and tiresome study of the historical and political aspects of the abovementioned periods, but they do seem to share certain similarities which are quite pertinent to our analysis of the parallels between these seemingly different experiences. We are aware of the fact that there are numerous distinctions and unlike motivations between the backgrounds of the colonial period and the period of national self-determination and the Communist reign in Slovakia. However, we do believe that there is certain correspondence which may uncover the space for connections and communication.
It is clear that to speak about colonial literature without mentioning the historical context would be at least incongruous if not incompetent, since they are closely intertwined and interdependent. Colonialism represents not only a political and economic structure; it is necessary to take into account its ideological background as well since it is responsible for the schematic and biased literary representations of the colonized peoples in colonial literature. The inclination to imperialism and the desire of European powers to influence the system of power relations within the continent has reached across its boundaries and brought about two massive waves of colonization (the first one starting already in the 15th century and lasting till the end of the 18th century, the second one starting in the 1870s). The enormous accumulation of overseas territories is, however, only one side of the process. In words of Edward Said, both imperialism and colonialism “are supported and perhaps even impelled by impressive cultural formations that include ideas that certain people and certain territories require and beseech domination.” (1993) As an example, he mentions India which according to some people “existed in order to be ruled by England”, i.e. without the English, India would disappear” (ibid.).
In other words, the expansion of colonial powers and the hierarchical shape of the new system being established (which was, of course, dominated by the colonizers) helped to create and support the idea of inferiority of the colonized territories and their citizens and the second-rateness of their cultural and spiritual heritage. This idea has, de facto, served as one of the main means for creating a powerful illusion that the whole system is legitimate and that the countries are facing only a civilizing mission. The forced contact together with the unnatural connection of absolutely different civilizations lead to the never-ending and often cataclysmic confrontations of the Self with the Other which was supposed to be civilized and humanized by the economically, politically and morally superior colonizer. The colonized population, thus, had to constantly struggle for its equality and political autonomy.
Similarly, since the Slovak Republic exists as an independent sovereign state only since 1993, it is evident that the Slovak nation’s struggles for its autonomy and self-determination have permeated the majority of our modern history. One may go as back to the past as to the Great Moravian Empire of the 8th – 10th century which united the Czech and Slovak tribes. Perhaps the most significant imprint of this era was the arrival of two Byzantine monks Cyril and Methodius (at the request of the emperor Rostislav) who introduced and spread Christianity across the empire. After the disintegration of the Great Moravian Empire the ancestors of Slovaks became the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary, thus being “separated politically from the western areas, inhabited by the ancestors of the Czechs for virtually a millennium.” (Library of Congress Country Studies, 29.1. 2007)
The struggle for Slovakia’s autonomy and for the recognition of Slovak nation gained a more or less organized form in the revolutionary period of 1848 under the leadership of Ľudovít Štúr. Despite the failures of these attempts the Slovak national movement continued to show perseverance in achieving its goals. In 1867 the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary was established with Slovaks being ruled by Hungarians and thus being subjected to a massive wave of Hungarian nationalism since “the Magyars set out to forcibly assimilate all the non-Magyar nationalities in Hungary” (Stolarik, 2006, p. 188). This policy has resulted in the fact that “[a]t the turn of the century, the idea of a "Czechoslovak" entity began to be advocated by some Czech and Slovak leaders” (Library of Congress Country Studies, 29.1. 2007). Cutting the long story short, after the WW I in 1918 the collapse of the Dual Monarchy gave rise to the centralized Czechoslovak republic. Nonetheless, the political autonomy of Slovakia was not achieved until January 1 in 1993.
The striving for autonomy, however, is not the single connection that ties the experiences of Slovak people with the indigenous population of the colonized territories. The Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1948 established a 40-year-long period of domination of a different sort. The Communist policy required conformity and adherence to the central commands and regulations in all aspects of life – be it politics, art, culture, education or science. Together with the illegal occupation of Czechoslovakia, invaded by the Warsaw Pact forces on August 20, 1968 (the last troops leaving the country in 1991!), the territory and the people of Slovakia became essentially linked with its new mother country – the Soviet Union. The dependence on the Soviet Union tempts one to consider it as a not so remote analogy to the empire-colony relation. The mutual tie in this case is formed by the communist ideology. As a result, this political turmoil only prompted the emigration of many Slovaks to foreign countries.[5]
In fact, the history of Slovak people is pervaded with numerous episodes displaying various forms of domination – either political or ideological - that it is almost impossible to deny the connection with the colonized people. Of course, we are aware of the fact that the conditions, motivation and means of control had differed in many aspects, but the essence, the very core of these processes, such as oppression, attempt to assimilate the affected population, limitations of personal freedom and independent thought, preference of central models, remains the same. To move forward with our analysis, it is vital to look at the artistic, i.e. literary parallels between colonial literature and literary works produced under the Communist regime.
First of all, the enormous fertility of Slovak writers producing novels concerning various problems evolving out of the struggle for national identity demonstrates the importance of literature as a means of arousing national awareness. This tendency dominated Slovak literature in the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century when the writers attempted to portray various concepts of national arousals. After the Communist takeover the situation in the artistic field changed immensely since the government imposed its rules and the infamous method of socialist realism to which all artists had to adhere. With art being centralized and restricted, creativity had been supplanted by uniformity and imitations of Soviet examples. The ideological background of these literary works could not be overlooked; the motivation being predominantly propagandistic. It is precisely the schematization and stereotypic representation of the social classes and so called class enemies that sucked the vitality out of literature.
The simplified and stereotyped images of Slovak workers (proletariat) depicted as a brave and united community pervaded the majority of literary works produced in this era especially by writers such as Peter Jilemnický, Ján Poničan, Fraňo Kráľ or Daniel Okáli. With the protagonist representing an ideal citizen fighting with the enemy (usually a capitalist, kulak or Western agent), these literary works succeeded in creating typified characters and standardized situations that aimed at strengthening the influence and justifying the rule of the communist regime. Since the individuality was masked in the anonymous mass, this type of literature was focused predominantly on external, i.e. social and political events.
In his essay The Economy of Manichean Allegory Abdul R. Janmohamed states that “the relation between imperial ideology and fiction is not unidirectional: the ideology does not simply determine fiction.” (1985, p. 22-23). In his view, it is rather the process of symbiosis through which “fiction forms the ideology by articulating and justifying the position and aims of the colonialist” (ibid.). When speaking about Communist literature, however, the relation between ideology and fiction was defined precisely by the centralized politics of the Communist party. With literature becoming “the servant of politics and ideology[6]” (Marčok, 2004, p. 15), the Party attempted to eliminate any sign of creative individuality. The structure and the content of literary works were subordinated to ideological criteria creating thus a totalitarian system of literature.
To return to our initial postulates, let us summarize the links between colonial and so called communist literature produced in Slovakia that may be viewed as the grounds for mutual communication. Undoubtedly, one is aware of the differences that separate these phenomena; the most obvious one being the quality of the literary productions. Whereas many works of colonial literature meet and accomplish artistic criteria as well (a lot of them being canonized as the great works of art), literature produced in Slovakia during the Communist reign is considered as more or less superficial, vapid and lifeless. Furthermore, Slovak literature was strictly guided by the centralized norms of the government which intentionally emphasized the propagandistic function while colonial literature, in words of Abdul R. Janmohamed, supported the imperial ideology rather indirectly.
Nevertheless, what these two literary periods share is their tendency to (whether consciously or subconsciously) overflow literature with ideological stances. Be it a Communist or colonial doctrine, literary works in both cases exercised the assumed superiority of the privileged group of people (either colonialists or members of the Communist Party) who thus imposed their own images of the Other (the indigenous population or the so called class enemies) on them. Moreover, Janmohamed states that “[a]ll the evil characteristics and habits with which the colonialist endows the native are thereby not presented as the products of social and cultural difference but as characteristics inherent in the race – in the blood - of the native” (1985, pp. 20-21). Similarly, one may apply the same pattern of thought to the Communists who perceived and represented the potential diversionists and saboteurs of the regime as morally disintegrated precisely because of their rejection of Communist ideology which cast them to the very periphery of social circle.
However, a glimpse at the differing responses of the oppressed people to these historical periods may open another interesting discourse. The process of decolonisation in the second half of the 20th century induced a massive wave of literary response accompanied by an impressive counter-discourse which has brought about a dramatic shift of rhetoric. Inevitably, the formerly colonized people were talking back, addressing their former oppressors, forcing the colonialists to reconceptualize their identities. By interrogating the literary practices of colonial writers who had, in fact, justified colonialism as such, and by exposing the limitations of their representations of colonized people in these works, postcolonial writers succeeded in their attempt to point not only at the dehumanization of the colonized but at the whole complex of solemn consequences of the colonial era. (Hevešiová, 2006, p. 40)
While postcolonial community did not fail to react to colonial discourse and provide thus an alternative record of the past for future generations, Slovak literature paradoxically still struggles with the lack of counter-discourse narratives. The topic of Communism offers immense possibilities for its processing but it does not seem to attract Slovak writers very much. The motif of Communism appears rather in shorter fictional forms, autobiographical or documentary genres. If it is detected sporadically in a novel, it seems to play second fiddle only. Some critics suggest that the unpopularity of this topic lies primarily in its potential to open unpleasant chapters of one’s own life. If a writer chooses to portray the moral decay of that era, it may set off an avalanche of caustic interrogatives questioning the moral probity of the author himself/herself. Furthermore, 18 years that passed since the Velvet Revolution do not seem to suffice for Slovaks to come into terms with this historical episode. One has to realize, however, that literature offers an intact space for a critical reflection of our history and our own position within it. The fertility of postcolonial literature can be, therefore, regarded as an inspiring stimulus for all generations of Slovak writers having the potential to raise their awareness of their own social obligations.
Bibliography:
A Country Study: Czechoslovakia (Former) In: Library of Congress Country Studies. <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+cs0025)>, printed 29.1. 2007.
Hevešiová, S., 2006. A Glimpse Beyond Postcolonialism (Zadie Smith‘s White Teeth) In: Aspects of Postcolonial Literature. Nitra: Filozofická fakulta, UKF, pp. 40-44.
Horňáková, L. & S. E. Agbaw, 2006. Introduction: Aspects of Postcolonialism. In: Aspects of Postcolonial Literature. Nitra: Filozofická fakulta, UKF, pp. 5-7.
Janmohamed, A.R., 1985. The Economy of Manichean Allegory. In: Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G. & H. Tiffin (eds.), 1995. The post-colonial studies reader. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 18-23.
Marčok, V. a kol., 2004. Dejiny slovenskej literatúry III. (Cesty slovenskej literatúry druhou polovicou XX. storočia). Bratislava: Literárne informačné centrum.
Said, E., 1993. Culture and Imperialism.
Stolarik, M.M., 2006. The Slovak League of America and the Canadian Slovak League in the Struggle for the Self-Determination of the Nation, 1907-1992. In: Kaščáková, J. & Mikuláš, D. (eds.), 2006. Emigration to the English Speaking World. Ružomberok: FF KU, pp. 185-217.
[1] To our knowledge, there are only two courses dedicated solely to this literary field – a course on American minority writing at the Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra and a course on Australian literature offered at the Prešov University.
[2] Since the prices of the books in Slovakia are relatively high (especially because of the 19% VAT) and they are thus not considered to be a profitable commodity in Slovakia, this strategy cannot be hold against the publishers.
[3] The Czech publishing houses spout their own translations of Zadie Smith, Hanif Kureishi, Salman Rushdie, Chinua Achebe, Jamaica Kincaid, etc.
[4] We do not, by any means, claim to provide a complete and final analysis of this topic – because of its virginity in Slovak academic field, the article rather attempts to outline some major points and theses to be developed and scrutinized in further research.
[5] The literary production of American Slovaks is discussed in the article of Lucia Horňáková.
[6] Translation by S.H.
