Primarily, Spivak offers a sharp critique of Foucault (F) and Deleuze (D). This large, first portion of her text pivots around F and Ds focus on interest, desire, and power: specifically looking at the (S)ubject from the view of the western intellectual. She accurately brings out F and Ds oversight of not correctly acknowledging the role of ideology within social relations, and labor structures: "Because these philosophers seem obliged to reject all arguments naming the concept of ideology as only schematic rather than textual, they are equally obliged to produce a mechanically schematic opposition between interest and desire. Thus they align themselves with bourgeois sociologists who fill the place of ideology with a continuistic "unconscious" or a parasubjective 'culture'" And so, Spivak suggests, "Neither D nor F seems aware that the intellectual within socialized capital, brandishing concrete experience, can help consolidate the international division of labor"
Spivak fills out this point with a look at the difference and utility of "representation" (vertreten) and "re-presentation" (darstellen). The first sense of representation brings out the political and economical impacts of the western intellect. This invovles a complex understanding of the relationship of colonialism, ideology, and most importantly an actual subsitution of the subject. The act of representation inherently involves Marx's notion of class consciousness. Spivak questions the notion of class consciousness, steering away from any monolithic solid notion and suggesting that though heterogenitically made up, it might be possible to group peoples, yet inherently problematic: "The gravity of the problem is apparent if one agrees that the development of a transformative class "consciousness" from a descriptive class "position" is not in Marx a task engaging the ground level of consciousness. Class consciousness remains with the feeling of community that belongs to national links and political organizations, not to that other feeling of community whose structural model is the family"
Here, Spivak wishes to push the notion of class consciousness away from the patriarchal notion of the family, which is inherently influenced through representation and ideology. Again, she underscores her point on the notion of class consciousness as inherently influenced by ideology and textual. Furthermore, she asserts that the intellectuals position through this sort of representation is textual as well and has lead to a continuation of the patriarchal, ideological, notion of class consciousness: "The absence of the nonfamilian artificial collective proper name is supplied by the only proper name "historical tradition" can offer--the patronymic itself--the Name of the Father. ... It is the Law of the Father (the Napoleonic Code) that paradoxically prohibits the search for the natural father. Thus, it is according to a strict observance of the historical Law of the father that the formed yet unformed class's faith in the natural father is gainsaid."
Further, Spivak enters into the conversation concerning re-presentation, or the philosophical concept of representation. Here the idea of representation is inherently related to values, "as produced in necessary and surplus labor, [it] is computer as the representation sign of objectified labor. She focuses on the impacts of global capitalism, and the influence of ideology and finally she asserts that theorists who uphold Marxist accounts of capitalism and ideology cannot avoid looking at representation with a dual meaning, or impact. "They must not how the staging of the world in representation--its scene of writing, its Darstellung--dissimulates the choice of and need for 'heroes' paternal proxies and agents of power--Vertretung.
Constrasting his continuing critiques of F and D, Spivak continues to look at Derrida and intends to uphold his more tedious, yet nonetheless effective deconstruction. Continuing, she introduces the influences of ideology, power, interest, desire, upon the S/subject and object.
All of her critique on past authors works well in the fact that, she is addressing an issue (when she finally gets to it, about 20 pages in) that deals with class consciousness. The very idea of the subaltern calls into question relational issues with other class, societies, cultures, (colonialism) and power issues as well (colonial issues again).
Her account of the subaltern as a woman is a calculated step: meaning that she accurately brings out the distinct otherness of a woman in Indian hindu society. She spends time delving into Hindu mythology and the societal structures that result because of this. The proposes the question of can the subaltern speak while concomitantly proposing a sentence that can be problematized and scrutinized to support her answer. The idea that white men and saving brown women from brown men; furthermore she introduces the flip side of the issue by the native, indian response/question of what if the brown woman wants to die.
She begins by introducing the history of British colonialism in India through education (and she includes a passage from an essay we read). Next she explicates the act that she plans to address: the suicide of women upon their husbands funeral pyres. She explains how the british government, opposed the act through constitutional law. She addresses the various names that a woman may be called, and finally she uses a personal example to elucidate the point taht the subaltern cannot speak, and is not heard.
-Alright, this is where I'll just talk and try to sound as intelligent as I can. One of the difficulties was the differentiation between subject and object. I felt that she was long winded at times, spending time covering her explaining things that are extra and only applicable to those who operate in the high minded intellectual world.
If I have more thoughts on what needs clarification, I'll add them soon. See you tomorrow in the cage at 11
No comments:
Post a Comment