3.9 stars. I enjoyed it and found it stimulating, and I recommend it overall. It seems to offer a novel reading of CLR James's The Black Jacobins. However, something about Scott's broader historiographical intervention felt lacking.
A few of the critical scholarly reviews I've read take other issues with the book--the centering of Toussaint Louverture in tragedy as a "great man" arising from history (rather than taking into account collective history of the Haitian people/revolutionaries), the sidelining of other important figures in the revolution and of the Cuban Revolution, and the focus on present and historical moments as homogenous ("we" are in the postcolonial contemporary problem-space)--but none seem to take direct hits at the central thesis, which is the part that feels underwhelming to me. My reading of Scott's argument is: "After Bandung," we moderns (setting aside the aforementioned definitional problems there) face not the Romantic vindicationism of anticolonial revolution but tragic postcolonial conditions, in which our choice for possible futures is not between colonialism and some alternative future or a return to "before colonialism," but between choices *within modernity.* - i.e., rendering us "conscripts of modernity." Scott calls on postmodern intellectuals not to exercise anticolonial attitudes but, rather, the tragic sensibility inherent in recognizing the "ambiguity and complexity" of the postcolonial conditions that shape our choices in the first place. Our rational faculties, he argues, should employ compassion and humility, recognizing that enlightened principles are always subject to "chance and contingency" -- that which is beyond human control.
This doesn't seem very interesting to me, not because I disagree, but because it's all been said before, right? The book itself implicitly admits this; the discussion of tragedy and moral/political theory largely draws on prior scholarship and merely drops it into the postcolonial setting (the seamlessness of that "drop in" is also worth interrogating). I'm also unclear what exactly it means to recognize the limits of one's rationality; how does that help postmodern intellectuals negotiate their so-called "tragic" choices, other than a vague exercise of compassion and open-mindedness to contingency/chance/ideas not one's own? As a reading of The Black Jacobins, the book is great. But as a broader intervention, I fail to see the novelty. Or am I misreading something?
Also, three other things: (1) Isn't it more interesting, perhaps, to think about how we can reshape these conditions in the first place, to combat modernity's positive power structures with our own restructuring? In that sense, Scott's call to the tragic seems awfully passive. (2) Doesn't Foucault's discussion of heterotopias in The Order of Things and "Of Other Spaces" grapple with the ambiguity/complexity of modern structures, thereby undermining the Foucault/Habermas dynamic which forms a central impasse that Scott attempts to answer or move past? (3) Scott says quite a lot about decentering Eurocentric scholarship, but almost all of his references are Euroamerican, so... ? Like, the focus on tragedy alone seems pretty Eurocentric; surely, there are many other narrative forms that might allow us to rethink ambiguity/complexity/contingency (see, e.g., Dipesh Chakrabarty's The Calling of History).
Side-gripe: Why is the DR not mentioned once?!