Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:44:47 +1200 From: Liz <lizd-AT-wam.umd.edu> Subject: strategic versus multiple essentialism I think there's an arbitrary division being made between the above terms. In Spivak's use of strategic essentialism it is *not* competitive but, as she points out, it is being misused in the sense that one group may critique another for its use of SE (which would be a competitive and seperatist employment) and that is exactly what Spivak warns should not be done. Keep in mind she lauds the "constant critique of the festish character" which would indicate a multiplicity of 'essences', which are not fixed. This provides some complexity beyond the polarized and homogenizing "working versus ruling class" discussion, for example. I'm combining a few different postings here, but why such academic strategies are separated from the 'struggle"(as some have expressed in other terms), I don't understand, nor do I think scrutiny of the terms we use is a 'word game' unless one believes that language should be transparent (i'm referencing glissant here), and that it has no socio-political history or future potential to transform or subvert ideologies. To simplistically segregate 'meaning' versus 'action', repeats the same tired argument that academics do not function in, impact, or are informed by the world "outside" the homogenous 'ivory tower.' Liz --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005