From: NADEEM OMAR <AJXNOT-AT-ccn4.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>
Date:          Mon, 6 May 1996 12:45:40 GMT0BST
Subject:       Re: double/speak - cathereses


>in response to NADEEM OMAR i have never felt that Spivak ..........
>... fail to acknowledge that  "not all hybrid subject postiotns are
> equal in power". but then they may not choose to include themselves in the
> "those of us who are  breaking new theoretical grounds in p.c theory"
> anyway.
Before I respond to your observation, let me expose my weakness: I am 
reluctant to accept the liberationist aesthetics on positive terms. 
Perhaps, bearing that it will be easy for you to correct me.

As a handy refernce to above statement in question,(& repeating a 
refernce from earlier mail) in oft-quoted interview of Spivak "Post 
Colonial Critic": where her Indian interviewer try to distance their 
subject-position them from her, but Spivak refuses to grant that
distinction. (Similarly in Outside Teaching Machine, see Interview)   
Now, on the one hand what I am asking is, what is at stake in refusing 
this distinction. On the other hand,I must concede to the fact that 
multiplicity of subject postions is what critics like Spivak/Bhabha 
and feminists are chasing about. So whats the catch. Am I barking at 
the wrong tree. Before we move on, I would appreciate if we can have 
sort of consensus on our preliminary observation.




     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---