XI. SpivakThis is a featured page




Posted Anonymously Latest page update: made by Anonymous , Apr 19 2007, 11:45 PM EDT (about this update About This Update Posted Anonymously Edited anonymously

1 word deleted

view changes

- complete history)
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
More Info: links to this page
Started By Thread Subject Replies Last Post
Anonymous Gina's Comment 0 Apr 19 2007, 11:08 PM EDT by Anonymous
 
Thread started: Apr 19 2007, 11:08 PM EDT  Watch
Reading Spivak and her account of sati made me think about Female Genital Mutation. What was interesting about Spivak’s work was that it did not (explicitely) focus on the moral implications of sati, but instead on the subject, while FGM is used as an example when trying to define a universal moral good. Thinking of the two different approaches to topics that the western intellectual traditionally finds morally wrong, raises questions. I realized that in my experience, while we have read works by African women, discussing FGM has always been done with hope of ‘representing’ (as in acting as a proxy for) what the women “really” want. This then lead me to think about how we discuss situations like the war in Iraq. Both sides attempt to say what the Iraqi’s “really want.” Spivak’s emphasis on how the subaltern cannot speak made me question my own assumptions when discussion moral situations for groups other than my own. It would also be interesting to hear Spivak’s opinion on if there is a moral universal good, or if the “western intellectuals” who discuss such matters can ever really know, since it is impossible for all groups to be represented.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)
Anonymous Eli's comment 0 Apr 19 2007, 8:18 PM EDT by Anonymous
 
Thread started: Apr 19 2007, 8:18 PM EDT  Watch
So, as coincidence has it, we talked about this philosopher named Levinas in one of my other classes today, and he had some pretty interesting ideas about "the other" that I will try to apply to Spivak's theories (though it was really difficult to understand either text). Levinas, I think, would criticize Spivak for being so married to an ideology of subjecthood, of the other as a type of subject. Levinas seems to criticize the narcissism of extrapolating one's own subjecthood to the other--of allowing internal life to dominate the external world. He questions the subject that only arises out of discourse, and instead proposes a sort of mutual "being for each other." He redefines the other as a sort of mysterious, unreachable being, a third party to the I/You of discourse. It seems that Spivak is too willing to apply the notions of "speech" and "subjectivity" to the other, and that she doesn't recognize the inability of the theorist to understanding or capture that other. Levinas is deeply distrustful of conceptualizing the external; rather than theorizing a conceptual understanding between subjects, he posits a sort "face-to-face" interraction with an actual person. In this interraction, each person is, in a way, buoyed toward a transcendent state by a language that pre-exists selfhood, that exceeds the totality of understanding. In this sense, language is not a violent tool for carving subjectivity, but a common plane upon which all personal interraction is grounded. While an internal world still exists, it is overwhelmed by the irreducibility of a "third party" exceeds any sort of narcissistic, subjective understanding. I think Spivak could have been more aware of the problems of subjecivity (especially of the other) rather than attacking at a chiefly political and ideological angle. Spivak might argue that the other is precisely at a disadvantage because of the imperialism of subjectivity, but she certainly upholds the primacy of the subject.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: None (edit keyword tags)

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)


Showing 2 of 2 threads for this page