representation, alterity and ethics in the work of gayatri chakravorty spivak

272 Pages·2011·14.8 MB·English

'WHO IS THE OTHER WOMAN?'
REPRESENTATION, ALTERITY AND ETHICS IN THE
WORK OF GAYATRI CHAKRAVORTY SPIVAK
Jill Margaret Arnott
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the department of English,
University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
1998
For Marge
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
This thesis, unless indicated otherwise, is my own work and has not been
submitted at any other time for another degree
Jill Margaret Arnott
-iii-
ABSTRACT
This dissertation analyses anumberofkeythemes in the work ofpostcolonialtheorist
and literary critic Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, and uses her ideas to argue for the
usefulness of both deconstructive and postmodern thought in a postcolonial context
generally, and in South Africa in particular.
The early partofthethesis presents abriefoverview ofSpivak'swork (Chapter 1) and
discusses its relationship with Derridean deconstruction and what I have called
"progressive postmodern thought". Chapter 2 explores in detail Spivak's use of
theoretical concepts adapted from, orclosely related to, deconstruction. Perhaps the
most important of these is catachresis - the idea that all naming is in a sense false,
and the words we use to conceptualise the world must be seen as "inadequate, yet
necessary". The thesis looks at how Spivak foregrounds the methodological
consequences ofthis insightin herown practiceofconstantly revisiting and rethinking
her own conclusions, and also at the political consequences of recognising specific
terms like "nation", "identity" or "woman" as catachrestic. Closely related to this area
of Spivak's work are her idea of "strategic essentialism" and her adaptation of
Derrida's concept of the pharrnakon -- that which is simultaneously poison and
medicine. Chapter3relates Spivak's workto three key areas ofpostmodern thought:
alterity, and the ethics ofthe relationship between selfand other; Lyotard's notions of
the differand and the "unpresentable"; and aporia, or the ethical and political
consequences of undecidability. I argue here that all of these emphases are
potentiallyveryusefulinpostcolonialstudies, particularlyin relationtothepredicament
-iv-
of the gendered subaltern, and that they help to define a progressive postmodern
politics.
The remainder of the dissertation discusses individual essays at greater length.
Chapter 4 focuses in the main on "Can the Subaltern Speak?" (1988) and Spivak's
arguments concerning the nature of subalternity and the politics of representation.
Chapter 5 examines Spivak's engagement with French Feminism and her feminist
critiques of mainstream deconstruction, arguing that Spivak's use of deconstruction
undermines the opposition between linguistic and material forms of oppression and
hence between theory and practice. Chapter 6 focuses on Spivak's reading of
literary texts and raises issues concerning, interalia, the production ofthe first world
selfatthe expense ofthethird world other; the limits ofboth metropolitantheories and
narratives of national liberation, democracy and development in relation to the
experience of the gendered subaltern; reading the text of the subaltern body; the
(impossible but necessary) ethical relationship between first world feminist and the
subaltern in neocolonialspace; rights and responsibility; the needto respectsubaltern
selfhood; and the possibility ofwhat Spivak calls "learning from below".
Finally, I look at the relevance of Spivak's thought to three areas of South African
political and academic life: conflicts over representation within the local Women's
movement; notions of national origin and national identity; and debates over
deconstruction and the relationship between the academy and society.
-v-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Iwould like to thank the following people for the help that they have given me in the
production ofthis dissertation:
My supervisor, David Attwell, for his support and encouragement, his perceptive
comments and useful suggestions, and for engaging so thoroughly with my work at
atime when he was particularly busy;
All the graduate students with whom I have discussed Spivak's work overthe years,
and who have helped me to clarify my ideas and formulations. It may be invidious to
mention individuals here, since all my students have contributed in some way, but
there are a numberofpeople who have, perhaps without realising it, encouraged me
to persistwith this project. So, for their positive responses both to Spivak's work and
to my accounts of it, I thank Anna von Veh, Sue Mathieson, Alison Lockhart, Liz
Mattson, and Andrea Nattrass. Iam also grateful to my colleague Gerald Westfor his
encouraging comments and for showing me that my work could be of use to other
people;
My fellow PhD candidates, Gerald Gaylard and Jenny Clarence-Fincham, for their
moral support, encouragement and empathy;
Carol Brammage, for help with my literature search;
Andrewand Zoeforputting upsocheerfullywith adistracted, crankyorentirelyabsent
step-mother;
And, above all, Anton, for more than can ever be adequately acknowledged: his
unfailing love and support, his meticulous reading of some sections of my work and
help with proofreading and formatting, but also for the extraordinary generosity with
which he has always shared his knowledge and his ideas. None ofthis would have
been possible without him.
-vi-
Thefinancial assistanceofthe CentreforScience Developmenttowardsthis research
is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those
of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the Centre for Science
Development.
-vii-
BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTE
1. Abbreviations used in the bibliography:
IOW In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics (1988)
PC The Postcolonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues, ed.
Sarah Harasym (1990)
OTM Outside in the Teaching Machine (1993)
Reader - The Spivak Reader, ed. Donna Landry and Gerald Maclean
(1996).
2. Use of dates:
Whenever an essay by Spivak appears for the first time in my text, I give the
date of its first publication. This is to give the reader a sense ofthe chronology
of Spivak's work. I also give first-publication dates where I am making a point
aboutthe developmentsthathavetaken place between one essayand another.
However, quotations are notalwaystaken from the earliest published version of
an essay; where an essay is available in In Other Worlds, The Postcolonial
Critic, or Outside in the Teaching Machine, that is the version Ihave used. This
explains any apparent discrepancy between the date assigned to an essay and
that given after a quotation from the same essay.
-viii-
CONTENTS
PREFACE: "The Fascination ofWhat's Difficult" 1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction 12
CHAPTER 2: The Uses o'f Catachresis: Naming, Power and Agency 33
CHAPTER 3: Alterity, Undecidability and Ethics:
Postmodern Thought in Postcoloniality 65
CHAPTER 4: The Politics of Representation: "Can the Subaltern Speak?" .. 102
CHAPTER 5: "Woman Will Be My Subject": Feminism and Deconstruction . 139
CHAPTER 6: Reading the Gendered Subaltern 176
CHAPTER 7: Conclusion 221
BIBLIOGRAPHY 251
-ix-
PREFACE
"THE FASCINATION OF WHAT'S DIFFICULT"
The comment most frequently made about the essays and other writings of Gayatri
Spivak is that they are difficult. Landry and Maclean, in the headnote to their edition of
Spivak's essay "Scattered Speculations on the Question of Value" comment that lithe
experience of the Spivakian page often seems one of insurmountable difficulty, and its
effect is to exaggerate one's sense of one's own ignorance or dimness" (107), a
commentwhich, incidentally, Ifound extremely reassuring. This perception is shared by
most people with whom I have discussed Spivak's work: a colleague memorably
described herexperience ofreading "Can the Subaltern Speak?" as "like chewing bran".
My most dramatic experience ofthe problem, however, came during the teaching ofan
Honours (4th Year) course on feminist theory, when Isetthree Spivak essays as readings
for one ofthe seminars. Four intelligentand motivated Honours students, who had dealt
uncomplainingly with texts by Cixous, Irigaray and Kristeva, and even a short piece by
Lacan -- for me the most bewilderingly cryptic ofwriters -- simply drewthe line at Spivak
and arrived at the seminarclaiming that they had done no preparation as the texts were
completely incomprehensible. Since then, I have had far more success in discussing
essays by Spivak in graduate seminars, but that episode remains a potent reminder of
her potential effect on an unprepared reader.
I have no intention of trying to defend Spivak against this charge of difficulty -- I battle
-1-