definition of cultural hegemony explains how the idea of European identity and culture was historically constructed to be perceived as superior “ in comparison with all the non-European peoples and cultures .” Therefore , in using language , which is both informed by and informs that culture , Gourevitch cannot help but compromise his representations . Moreover , the legacy of the constructed European identity informs , according to McMillan , the decision to render narratives about the genocide in English , which “ is not simply a marketing choice but a discriminatory discursive practice that facilitates the global dominance of a culturally particular perspective .”
Spivak has argued “ One cannot … “ choose ” to step out of ideology . The most responsible “ choice ” seems to be to know it as best one can …[ and ] to work to change it .” Yet , consciously or otherwise , Gourevitch compromises his own position quite early in the text when he invokes the image of Marlow from Conrad ’ s Heart of Darkness . It is as though Gourevitch is inviting us to make comparisons between himself and Marlow , which is highly problematic if also appropriate . According to Achebe , Marlow held those “ advanced and humane views ” of the English liberal class who were “ deeply shocked by atrocities in Bulgaria or the Congo .” While Gourevitch does not consciously view black Africans with the same disdain Marlow does , both men enter Africa as outsiders who ostensibly abhor brutal violence . This invited comparison has the effect of harming Gourevitch ’ s own position when representing the pain of Rwandans . We can see this more broadly in the parallels Gourevitch makes between the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust , as insightfully noted by Lemarchand . Throughout the text ,