1.3. Postcolonialism, Cultural Imperialism, and the Voice from the Third World

In Orientalism, Edward W. Said quoted a pronouncement from Arthur James Balfour on 6^th June 1910. In this speech, Balfour argues that Western nations have the ability of ‘self-government’ from birth; on the contrary, this cannot be found in the entire history of the ‘East’; throughout their booming period they have undergone absolute despotism, and there is no nation did set up autonomy like the West. Then he goes on to say:

Is it a good thing for these great nations—I admit their greatness—that this absolute government should be exercised by us? I think it is a good thing. I think that experience shows that they have got under it far better government than in the whole history of the world they ever had before, and which not only is a benefit to them, but is undoubtedly a benefit to the whole of the civilised West…We are in Egypt not merely for the sake of the Egyptians, though we are there for their sake; we are there also for the sake of Europe at large. (33)[1]

This is really an excellent proclamation which can even be used by some presidents today. Mr. Balfour definitely proved the excellent cultural logic of colonialism and imperialism to the extent of  his excellent political ability. However, when Balfour argued for its occupation the Egypt, as Said found, the dominant power in his mind, was NOT related to military or economic force, but to ‘“our” knowledge of Egypt’ (Orientalism 32). Here, I would like to emphasize two words: dominant and ‘knowledge’, and the latter could be extended as ‘culture’ or ‘civilization’ to some degree. In fact, the reason I quote this speech is that it constitutes an explicit deed to display the essence of colonialism and imperialism, and I think this is here more directly visible than in any explanations in theory.

Accordingly, if postcolonialism is obviously a subject concerned with colonization and the Third World condition after it, the idea of cultural imperialism seems more extensive and complicated. There was yet been no accurate definition of it since it emerged in the 1960s (John Tomlinson 2)[2]. Briefly, in Martin Barker’s opinion, the proceeding of imperialist control over other countries is ‘aided and abetted by importing supportive forms of culture’ (292)[3]; although other thinking deems it ‘the use of political and economic power to exalt and spread the values and habits of a foreign culture at the expense of a native culture’ (A. Bullock and O. Stallybrass 303)[4]. However, as Tomlinson argues, it is hard to believe that watching television is an action which is ‘imposed’, or that this process leads to the loss of definitely ‘a native culture’ (3). That is to say, cultural imperialism may have two methods: one is economy—power—culture, the other is culture—power—economy, and in the current ‘peaceful’ period (even though the war in Iraq continues), the later pattern is perhaps the more effective.

Practically, as the historical fact[5] has shown, ‘by the end of World War I Europe had colonized 85 percent of the earth’ (Said, Orientalism 123), which means not only the Oriental but also the entire underdeveloped area have been manipulated under the shadow of modern notions of ‘autonomy’ in the last century. However, a vital issue is that, whether colonialism, cultural imperialism or postcolonialism, all these representations are from or based on the West (or the First World) rather than the East (or the Third World). The question is, where is the voice from these regions?

This idea is further discussed in the third chapter. First I would like to clarify the meaning of the term Third World, as it does not accurately mean the East or the Oriental only. According to Said, the Third World is a region including China, Indochina, the Near East, Africa and Latin America (46), which is the common map in geography. Nevertheless, as Christopher Hill points out, the idea of geography may display the contemporary condition of the world, but it cannot provide a preceding explanation of the reason it was shaped (82). For instance, from a historical perspective, the Third World conceptualised by following the process of colonization, and on the political side, it first emerged because of the cold war between two superpower countries (USA and USSR) in the middle of the twentieth century after the Second World War. More accurately, Peter Worsley illustrates the definition of the Third World in the following tables (see table A and B)[6].