In Response To:
Although I do not quite understand During's article either, I still try to express what I get either form this article or from our course. Then, we can invite more discusssion. I tried to reply your post first and then turn to my own response toward this essasy. As for the shift of During's points, During charaterizes (actually attatcks) posmoden thought in order to show the "Need" or possibilities of post-colonial identity and post-colonialism. (It is because the postmodern thoughts wipe out post-colonialism) With regard to Jameson, the strategy he uses is to use Jameson's view attacks Jameson' posmodernism. Indeed, During agrees with the features Jameson describes for postmodernity such as culture machines. However, he also points out the weakness of Jameson. For example, since Jameson regards culture as totality and history capitalism, but his view of multinational capitalism is also "a totality which is the effect of another totality." (Jameson's cultual pessimism is presented by Adorno before) Another example is Jameson's internationalism of postmodernity. Actually, this view is to "realize the end of nationalism so desired by some socialisms.
My response is as follow: firstl, During seems focuse on the discussion between postmodernism(either Jameson's or Lytoard's view) and postcolonialism; however, what I am eager to know is: What are the assertions of his Postcolonialism? It is quite helpful that we have several points about the overlapping of postmodernism and postcolonialism such as de-centeric and heterogeniety. And what I basically know is that "postcolonialism seeks to undermine the imperialist subject," (Seldeon 222) Then, my question is raised here: Does postcolonialism focuse on the others' (those who are colonized) resistance toward the colonizer (imperialistic subject) rather than than welcome attatude? Take Tawain as example, 在政治社會不安定的同時，有些人開始懷念日本統治的時候，