Skip to main content
Get your brand new Wikispaces Classroom now
and do "back to school" in style.
Pages and Files
SIS-700 CRS Proseminar
SIS-701 IR Proseminar
SIS-705 Social Theory Proseminar
SIS-714 The Conduct of Inqury in International Relations
Scholars and Thinkers
Ferdinand de Saussure
Qualitative Data Analysis
Recent Changes (still working on this one)
A Theory of Power for Women”
A Theory of Structure Duality, Agency, and Transformation
Action Systems and Social Systems
An Economic Theory of Democracy
An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism
Anomie and the Modern Division of Labor
Arbitrary Social Values and the Linguistic sign
Arbitrary Social Values and the Linguistic sign (2)
Art, War, and Fascism
Assembling the Social
Back to the Future Endogenous Institutions and Comparative Politics
Call for a Debate about the Paradigm
Can the Subaltern Speak
Capital and the Values of Commodities
Civil Society and the Political Public Sphere
Civilization and the Individual
Civilizing the Enemy German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West
Class, Status, Party
Climate, Coastal Proximity, and Development
Can the Subaltern Speak
Can the Subaltern Speak?
This is a short discussion on 'subaltern' studies (i.e. people interested in postcolonial societies) and a method of inquiry for post-colonial feminist studies. The author looks at whether subaltern can speak or not through the example of women in post colonial world. She discusses the role of colonization in discourse formation (without actually calling it a discourse formation). In short, she approaches the problem from a literary criticism point.
She first gives the example of 'poor,black,female' (as an example of expression). He then underlines (pretty much like S. Hall) color is useless in the context of third world.
Moreover "the post-colonial intellectual systematically unlearns female privilige" (p.549 3rd edition)
So, then what can we do to unmute subaltern women? Culler talks about producing difference by differing or appealing to a sexual identity defined as essential and privilege experiences associated with that identity. Spivak refuses this understanding.
(Here is where I get completely confused). She starts comparing theory with positivism/essentialism. She gives the example of Hindu women and how some practices were abolished by colonists (White men saving brown women from brown men.) This so-called protection of woman is then somehow considered as a sign of good society (equity of legal policy).
I remain generally sympathetic in aligning feminism with the critique of positivism and the defetishization of the concrete....I tactically confronted the immense problem of the consciousness of the woman as subaltern....The analogy here is between the ideological victimization of a Freud and the positionality of the postcolonial intellectual as investigating subject.
- What is the main 'benefit' of discussing women in the post-colonial world as opposed to discussing gender, or discussing the society with no specific interest in gender?
help on how to format text
Turn off "Getting Started"