Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 08:50:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Wolf Factory <wolf_factory-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: subaltern?


Don't bother....really. It is crap. there are much
better things to read.  I have come to the conclusion
that Spivak is incapable of using the English language
to good effect. If you plough through her work, you
can after a while extract interesting nuggets.
However, one always remains doubtful whether the full
meaning of these nugget has been properly understood
due to the mystifying language deployed. Orwell's
famous essay on the abuse of language inevitably
springs to mind when reading her work. A scholarly
work does not need to be * simple * in order to attain
our attention. However, as long as a scholar has
committed him or herself to using language and
particularly the written word in order to express
ideas (as opposed to say beating their ideas out on a
drum) then it becomes imperative that they find the
best and simplest ways of conveying these ideas in
spite of their difficulty. There is no sign in
Spivak's work that such an attempt has been made. The
alternative explanation I have is somewhat more
forgiving. Spivak may be suffering from a rare form of
neurological defect that renders her incapable of
assigning words their correct meaning or to conjuring
useful metaphors. In that case, she could be of great
value to scientists.
W.F 
 

 

--- Maci Elkins <macibkstore-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> I decided to read through Spivak's Can the Subaltern
> Speak? essay recently (also via 3rd chapter of CPR),
> and I'm a bit confused about her critique of the
> "Foucault-Deleuze conversation". Could someone
> please
> offer a few words on that subject? I'm especially
> thinking of the following passages:
> 
> "My view is that radical practice should attend to
> this double session of representations rather than
> reintroduce the individual subject through
> totalizing
> concepts of power and desire [as Foucault and
> Deleuze
> do]".
> 
> "...the constitutive subject on at least two levels:
> the Subject of desire and power as an irreducible
> methodological presupposition; and the
> self-proximate,
> if not self-identical, subject of the oppressed.
> Further, the intellectuals, who are neither of these
> S/subjects, become transparent in the relay race,
> for
> they merely report on the nonrepresented subject and
> analyze (without analyzing) the workings of (the
> unnamed Subject irreducibly presupposed by) power
> and
> desire."
> 
> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
> 
> Maci.
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


===="All the wolves in the wolf factory paused at noon, 
for a moment of silence."
........from laughing Gravy by John Ashbery.
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking for something good and original to read?
Check out: http://www.mesopotamia.free-online.co.uk

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


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