![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Between patriarchy and imperialism, subject-constitution and object-formation, the figure of the woman disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the "thrid-world woman" caught between tradition and modernization"
"The subaltern cannot speak. There is no virtue in global laundry lists with "woman" as a pious item. Representation has not withered away. The female intellectual as intellectual has a circumscribed task whihc she must not disown with a flourish"
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's "Can The Subaltern Speak?" is the hardest thing I have ever read. call me crazy, but I even enjoyed reading it. Spivka referred to Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, Freud, Marx, Derrida, Heidegger quite a bit. When reading her references to these thinkers I felt that I was missing something important. I am somewhat familiar with Freud and Marx, and have some idea of what Foucault did, but that is about it. Reading more of these people may or may not have given much insight to what Spivak said. I think what will be most helpful are discussion in class. While I found Spivak’s ideas quite interesting, I found her to be quiet unaccessible at times. Lisa says that we will Spivak’s ideas will constantly be brought up again in the other essays we will be reading. Maybe I will have more insight then.
"The subaltern cannot speak. There is no virtue in global laundry lists with "woman" as a pious item. Representation has not withered away. The female intellectual as intellectual has a circumscribed task whihc she must not disown with a flourish"
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's "Can The Subaltern Speak?" is the hardest thing I have ever read. call me crazy, but I even enjoyed reading it. Spivka referred to Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, Freud, Marx, Derrida, Heidegger quite a bit. When reading her references to these thinkers I felt that I was missing something important. I am somewhat familiar with Freud and Marx, and have some idea of what Foucault did, but that is about it. Reading more of these people may or may not have given much insight to what Spivak said. I think what will be most helpful are discussion in class. While I found Spivak’s ideas quite interesting, I found her to be quiet unaccessible at times. Lisa says that we will Spivak’s ideas will constantly be brought up again in the other essays we will be reading. Maybe I will have more insight then.
