awej 5 no.4 full issue 2014

AWEJ Volume.5 Number.3, 2014Dialogic Signs of Resistance: a Case Study of ReadingAbu-Shomar & AbuHilalbe, as Krupat (quoted in Moore, p. 22) puts it, “not to overthrow the Tower of Babel, but, as itwere, to install a simultaneous translation system in it; not to homogenise human or literarydifferences but to make them at least mutually intelligible”. Since literary theory has a tendencytoward dualistic critique, it finds itself aligned with the hierarchy of the „self‟ and the „other‟,which, without examining the ethics of a colonial context, projects various unfortunate forms ofthe „noble savage‟ onto the colonised other. Such dualistic epistemology, Moore affirms, “canproduce a politics of exoticism, an 'orientalism', on the economics of mercantilism andcommodification, reading the text for academic lucre” (p. 19).Additionally, a dialogic approach to the text resists hegemonic and universalistic claims as wellas ethnocentric projects. „Aesthetic universalism‟ ignores the particular, different, and otherculturally specific modes and codes. In fact the multiplicity of dialogic perspectives thatacknowledges the „other‟ as an „other‟, cannot ignore the other cultural perspective from whichthe text is produced. Thus, the dialogic reader is neither called to adopt that perspective nor toinsist on the absolute difference from the perspective of the „other‟. Besides rejecting „culturalabsolute difference‟, dialogics resists homogenising criticisms. Dialogic reading and criticismthus calls for learning from the cultural contextual elements surrounding the text to produce amore accurate criticism of that text. Such dialogic scepticism towards universalist assumptions,such as the imperial selfhood is indeed a prerequisite to „careful‟ negotiation of critical andcultural exchange with texts. Hence it would not be naïve to suggest that the particularpossibilities for intercultural critical participation are multiple, however sensitive. Theimpossibility of knowing the „other‟ without an alternative participatory epistemology ofexchange, inscribes the native „other‟ as the vanishing sign. Moore claims that “an alternativeepistemology of exchange logically opens up both perceptions of historically specific nativecultural survival and of academic participation in recognition of that survival” (p. 27). Thusuniversalistic projects can miss the political context of dialogic cultural survival in a given text:“A dialogic critique, however, finds textual and contextual ways for critical selves to speakneither of nor for the other but with the other” (p. 27).In conclusion, for a post-colonial world to sustain a decolonising, it becomes crucial that criticalprojects are framed by assumptions of multiple cultural possibilities practiced through thecreation of dynamic and multiple spaces. Dialogics offers a post-colonial subject to cross fromthe colonised „self‟ to an understanding of a post-colonial „other‟. Such a process requires anengagement in a dialogue (with the text and beyond) that is not merely a cognitive, but also aparticipatory and contextual engagement. A post-colonial learner can perform a participatoryprocess of knowing by dialogic and through transcending „the cultural constellations‟ or „forcefields‟(Achebe, 1965) that shape colonial binaries. Recognising the complexities of culturalrepresentations, dialogics emphasises a „process‟ rather than „destination‟ and the ever changingover the static stance of knowledge. It pays attention to the mediator or interpreter, rather thanwhat it is pointing to and ostensibly avoiding the essentialising of difference, with all that thispolitically and culturally entails (Murray, quoted in Moore, p. 22). Such readers are able to linkthe text ethically to the context by acknowledging new paradigms in the cross-cultural contacts.A case study: context, methods, and samplingThe case study was conducted in an English department in a „post-colonial‟ higher educationinstitution. Using a case study approach (Guba and Lincoln 1985; Merriam 2001, Denzin andLincoln, 2005; Bloor and Wood, 2006), we aimed to gain a „thick description‟ (Creswell, 2007)of the students‟ dialogic engagements and interpretation of the given text. In the case study, weArab World English JournalISSN: 2229-9327www.awej.org151