82 SOCIAL SCIENTIST structuralism, post-structuralism; the Voroshinov/Bakhtin Circle; Gramsci, Freud and the Lacanian Freud and so on. More and more critics and theories of literature on the left have sought, then, to combine these diverse continental "insertions with debates and preoccupations specific to the Anglo-American academy—for example, 'Commonwealth Literature', 'Minority Discourse', Counter-Cannon, multi-culturalism, the location of non-European Immigrant intelligentsia in structures of metro-political hegemony—to produce theoretical articulation quite novel in quality and kinds. These theoretical schematic combinations have had the effect not only of focussing attention on particular areas of concern but also, frequently of reformulating much older and recalcitrant issues both of minority within these societies and of imperialism and colonialism, as regards the archives of Western Knowledge and the question of cultural domination exercised by countries of advanced capital over imperialist countries/ The root of this 'explosition of theory' is the fact that the working class and the socialist movements in the world have been going through a period of inner crisis with such developments in the world political arena as the victory of the anti-fascist forces in the Second World War; the counter-offensive launched by world capitalism; resistance to it in the newly-liberated countries as well as in the capitalist countries etc. All these gave rise to new modes of thinking among the ruling classes as well as in the working class and the national liberation movements. The intelligentsia sought explanations for the new developments which were a mixture of victory for the capitalist and socialist worlds. It was in such a world political situation that an 'explosion of theory' took place in the literary world. The new trends in literature spelt out by the author in the passage quoted above, are manifestations of the ideological and theoretical confusion caused by political developments. The trends mentioned above are, in other words, the literary and cultural forms in which the course of world politics exerts influence. It is to explain this reality that the introductory and the following five chapters of the book have been devoted. The point that comes out of these discussions is that 'Nationalism is not the determinate, dialectical opposite of imperialism, the dialectical status accrues only to socialism. . . I do not accept that nationalism is some unitary thing, always progressive or always retrograde. What role any given nationalism would play always depends on the variation of class forces and socio-political practices which organise the power bloc within which any particular set of nationalist initiatives become historically effective. That position cuts against both Third Worldist Nationalism and Post-Structuralist rhetorical inflations implies at least two things: it recognises the capability and even the