The note from Dr. Lamana...

Dear All:

I wanted to share with you some thoughts after our last class. First, I found it interesting to note a shift in all of you. From a certainty about who is the good guy and why, to a sense of confusion and dissatisfaction. I think that the opposed positions -and our dissatisfaction- alert us of the fact that there are no easy shortcuts when dealing with difference. No black/white narrative strategy of representation is going to undo hegemonic designs.

Second, I believe the debate (ours and theirs) makes clear to what extent domination, in particular a colonial one, is in a last instance epistemological. It has to do with defining reality, ends to which there are many means, including how difference is conceived and becomes materially recognizable. We'll keep on returning to this point.

Third, the debate shows what I believe is a double-bind that makes imperialism effective: assertions of difference can lead to exotization (the colonized is inexcusably other, therefore inferior); assertions of sameness can lead to an imposition of Western ways as the only way, which not only does the epistemological job but makes the other an idiot who fails to comply.

Last, a point about class dynamics, disciplines, and performance. I know that some of you where a bit hesitant about the disciplinary diversity of the group. Although I myself believe that is a plus rather than a problem, I wanted to share with you interesting ways in which this is already resulting in unorthodox thinking. Giancarlo, who is from archaeology, wrote a reflection paper on the debate that could be from any literary critic -all about disciplines, places of enunciation, asking questions of representation and authority; on the other hand, Ryan, who is from English, wrote one that to me was clearly anthropological -all about rationality and cultural difference.