Post Colonialism and Intentional Fallacy

“The bane of themes of this genre is that they are no sooner employed creatively than they acquire the facile tag of ‘clash of cultures’, a prejudicial label which, quite apart from its frequent misapplication, presupposes a potential equality in every given situation of the alien culture and the indigenous…” (3) From Soyinka, Wole. Death and the King’s Horseman: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed.: Gikandi, Simon. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 2003. In this passage from the author’s note the reader is warned against reading the play through a post-colonial lens because it cheapens the intended message of the play. While this calls into play the concept of intentional fallacy, I think we need to explore this concept more and see what role it actually plays in interpreting text. My point is this: intentional fallacy claims that the author’s intentions when writing a text are deemed irrelevant once the text is complete because the text speaks for itself. I agree, but since the text speaks for itself it is because the author taught it to speak. Therefore , I feel we should heed the warning in the author’s note and ask ourselves not about the relevancy of the text in a post-colonial context, but rather the way the play deals with the universality of death.