The inoperativity of postcoloniality as a theory machine, nowadays, needs to be critically taken up not only because the Anthropocene does not necessarily relate its concerns in terms of "postcolonial" vocabulary but also because a territorialized and stratified grammatology of postcoloniality does not correspond to the birth of the "new earth," which stands wedded to the production of the "new." It is undeniably true that the discursive premises of postcoloniality rest on the complex network of binarization, structurality, codification, hierarchization, and stratification. Whereas Edward Said has understood the East-West liaison in terms of binary formation, Homi K. Bhabha has summarily questioned the structural politics of binarization by means of propounding a bunch of postcolonial lexicons like "mimicking," "subverting," and "ambivalence," among others. It is generally accepted by postcolonial thinkers that the nuanced experiences of postcoloniality are ultimately grounded in the hegemonic interpellation of colonial subjectivity and biopolitical exercises of power. It is true that postcolonial thinkers cannot exceed the bounds of (em)bodiment while [End Page 203] framing the narratives of counterstrikes. This phenomenon leads one to deduce that the territorialized grammatology of postcoloniality does not facilitate one to go beyond the rigid frameworks of dialecticality, and it, in actuality, drives one to wallow in the ideological structures of repression and reparativism, dominance and dismantlement