Spivak in this essay brings out many of the points previously discussed in class. He mentions the role of intellectual historians in the "ideological reproduction of social relations" when he aptly quotes Althusser: "the reproduction of labour power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class 'in and by words'". Knowledge-production plays the central role in ensuring the successful manipulation of the particular masses to meet the specified goals.
It is often assumed that the intellectual is better equipped to understand the condition of the masses. However, Spivak quotes Foucalt to contradict this: "the masses know perfectly well, clearly they know far better than [the intellectual] and they certainly say it very well". Yet, it is the intellectual that within the tradition of history-writing often makes the masses speak- however the words they speak are seldom theirs. The words are more often than not tainted by the political project of that time- be it colonial or neo-colonial historiography or elite nationalist narratives.
Spivak points out how Marx is not working to create an undivided subject "where desire and interest coincide". In fact, he is obliged to "construct models of a divided and dislocated subject whose parts are not continuous or coherent with each other". The subject cannot be perceived as a monolithic entity- he exists with various divisions and discontinuities. Thus class-consciousness too should ideally not be used as a blanket term: "In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life..they form a class. In so far as..the identity of their interests fails to produce a feeling of community...they do not form a class".
Just like Guha, Spivak too highlights the concept of negation to represent the subaltern - he highlights how the small peasant proprietors "cannot represent themselves; they must be represented. Their representative must appear simultaneously as their master..".
Another very interesting aspect that Spivak mentions that requires deliberation is the relationship between "global capitalism (exploitation in economics) and nation-state alliances (domination in geo-politics) is so macrological that it cannot account for the micrological texture of power". This highlights how certain ways of understanding are in themselves incapable of accurately representing certain ways of being. Spivak also highlights how the representation of Foucault's project "as a challenge to the leading role of both hegemonic and oppositional intellectuals" is deceptive as it ignores the critic's institutional responsibility. This once again highlights how such a project cannot be detached from the politics surrounding it. It is in this regard that education and the post-colonial institutional workings ensured the continuity of the colonial mindset. Its link to subjugation is clear when Spivak mentions how "the narrow epistemic violence of imperialism gives us an imperfect allegory of the general violence that is the possibility of the episteme".
Lastly by discussing the case of subaltern as female, Spivak highlights not only the multiple layers of subalternity but also how colonial discourses on women oppression themselves are divorced from the ground realities- with no regards to their cultural sensitivities whatsoever (hint for certain brands of contemporary feminism)!
It is often assumed that the intellectual is better equipped to understand the condition of the masses. However, Spivak quotes Foucalt to contradict this: "the masses know perfectly well, clearly they know far better than [the intellectual] and they certainly say it very well". Yet, it is the intellectual that within the tradition of history-writing often makes the masses speak- however the words they speak are seldom theirs. The words are more often than not tainted by the political project of that time- be it colonial or neo-colonial historiography or elite nationalist narratives.
Spivak points out how Marx is not working to create an undivided subject "where desire and interest coincide". In fact, he is obliged to "construct models of a divided and dislocated subject whose parts are not continuous or coherent with each other". The subject cannot be perceived as a monolithic entity- he exists with various divisions and discontinuities. Thus class-consciousness too should ideally not be used as a blanket term: "In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life..they form a class. In so far as..the identity of their interests fails to produce a feeling of community...they do not form a class".
Just like Guha, Spivak too highlights the concept of negation to represent the subaltern - he highlights how the small peasant proprietors "cannot represent themselves; they must be represented. Their representative must appear simultaneously as their master..".
Another very interesting aspect that Spivak mentions that requires deliberation is the relationship between "global capitalism (exploitation in economics) and nation-state alliances (domination in geo-politics) is so macrological that it cannot account for the micrological texture of power". This highlights how certain ways of understanding are in themselves incapable of accurately representing certain ways of being. Spivak also highlights how the representation of Foucault's project "as a challenge to the leading role of both hegemonic and oppositional intellectuals" is deceptive as it ignores the critic's institutional responsibility. This once again highlights how such a project cannot be detached from the politics surrounding it. It is in this regard that education and the post-colonial institutional workings ensured the continuity of the colonial mindset. Its link to subjugation is clear when Spivak mentions how "the narrow epistemic violence of imperialism gives us an imperfect allegory of the general violence that is the possibility of the episteme".
Lastly by discussing the case of subaltern as female, Spivak highlights not only the multiple layers of subalternity but also how colonial discourses on women oppression themselves are divorced from the ground realities- with no regards to their cultural sensitivities whatsoever (hint for certain brands of contemporary feminism)!
سب عالٹرن*
ReplyDeleteYou guys have to teach me how to use the urdu script!
ReplyDelete