File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_1998/postcolonial.9804, message 171


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005