The case of Amy Cheong calls the bluff of most academic postmodern discourse. No sooner did the incident occur then do the enlightened high brow people pontificate about Singapore’s racist policies and other forms of implicit racism in society. But lo now it is revealed that she is actually an Australian citizen with Singapore PR.
Oh dear, should they now join in with the xenophobes fuming against foreigners who can’t integrate into local culture and continue to maintain the cause of marginalized Malays? Or should they now turn their backs on the Malays and defend the FTs?
This is what happens when you maintain an “oppressor”-“oppressed” narrative, what happens when two “oppressed” groups oppress each other?
Then again, empirical facts have a habit of resisting grand narratives.
2 thought on “”
Hmm. I always thought pomo’s mandate is to resist grand narratives. I supposed it’s hard to resist grand narratives without resorting to other grand narratives.
I guess pomo would cry out against any “unifying” understanding of what pomo itself is. I am not personally opposed to pomo per se, in fact, I would consider myself a pomo in a certain sense. But, empirically speaking, a lot of pomo discourse are obessed with power and dominance, etc. And in their determination to hold on to Marxist “Grand Narrative” of reading everything through the concepts of power and dominance, they inevitably adopt a different sort of “grand narrative”, albeit a very secular materialistic one.
I mused a little about in what sense I am a pomo here: