Content area
Full Text
Saree Makdisi. Romantic Imperialism: Universal Empire and the Culture of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. xv+ 248. $21.95.
To appreciate this powerful book one has, at the outset, to make a voluntary suspension of disbelief, for Saree Makdisi asks us to travel through great swathes of time and space. He is a Whig-or rather Hegelian-- historian manque, who presents history as a sweeping, continuous and seemingly inevitable process. Makdisi's grand narrative is, so long as we keep our poetic faith, compelling. And we want to keep our faith because it leaves us emotionally involved. Like Byron, we are placed in awe of a mighty temporal process whose effects we lament. Makdisi calls the process, following Jameson and Said, modernization-meaning a globalizing capitalism that has overwhelmed the world, collapsing difference and defining space only in relation to an imperialist center. According to Makdisi, today's world and contemporary consciousness are shaped by it, but it began with a vengeance in the romantic period. Romanticism criticized but also participated in it.
Modernization has enormous power in the world of Makdisi's text. It is the dark sublime that he summons into his narrative to turn the critic into a romantic hero. We are awestruck by its inevitability and universality even as we enjoy our sorrow over its destruction of peoples, places and cultures. Makdisi's modernization, in other words, is a power we love to loathe because it makes the reader a Childe Harold of the twenty-first century, one who feels inwardly the sorrow of inevitable historical loss.
It should come as no surprise that New Historicists can be as complicit with aspects of romantic ideology as were the critics who adopted the ahistorical imagination as their ideal. Nor is it necessarily a criticism to say that a writer makes history conform to a romantic narrative. All retellings of the past construct it according to one or another kind of narrative pattern. In Makdisi's case, however, it is ironic that a critic who is so sharply suspicious of the universalizing discourses of the early nineteenth century should so strenuously endorse one of the late twentieth century. Makdisi takes James Mill to task for assuming that India could and should be comprehended and governed by a discourse produced in...