Spivak Classic Introduction

Criticism of post-colonial rationality: the present history towards disappearance.

No 1 of 2004

Harvard university press, 1999

In her new book, spivak turned her critical perspective to globalization, postcolonial and cross-cultural studies in 1990s. Corresponding to the standardized knowledge structure that has become a system, her criticism can be divided into four parts: philosophy (reading Kant, Hegel and Marx); Literature (rereading the works of Kipling, Shelley, [Coetzee] and other writers); History (reflection on archival documents and her revision and rewriting of the consistent answer "Can colonial people speak?"); Culture (focusing on the global textile industry and its contradictions). Although all the chapters in spivak's book are aimed at a different theme, the research methods embodied in each chapter are basically the same: the conclusions embodied in each chapter focus on the detailed reading of specific texts, and she constantly reminds readers of her own environment and the accidental factors that enable her to reach these conclusions. Indeed, spivak's rhetorical style is also a central clue throughout the book, and she is always having a dialogue with her previous views; At the same time, when writing this book, it is also a dialogue with her own ideas that are finally given expression. This form of dialogue runs through the text, and in many cases it also determines the relationship between footnotes and the text. Different from almost all contemporary theorists, spivak leads her works to thinking about educational methods (she thinks about how to inspire students and how to transcend those inherent thinking limitations, which are caused by their educational environment that advocates logical deduction), and this idea is reflected in her text framework-this is not teleology, but a scattered but detailed and profound text. In the brief postscript of this book entitled "Making Deconstruction Work", she reached her own conclusion. This postscript traces and explains Derrida's use of the term deconstruction in his works from 1965 to the 1990s. This is an appropriate summary, but it cannot be regarded as an introduction to Derrida, because it assumes that readers are quite familiar with the text of their comments.

Among spivak's useful and insightful criticism, three points deserve our attention: the discussion of the image of "local informant" (a term borrowed from ethnographic works); Re-understanding the construction of Marx's theory of Asian mode of production: critically evaluating the enthusiasm for multiculturalism and postmodernism under the transnational background. After referring to Kant's understanding of sublimity and cultural function, spivak began to discuss "indigenous responders". She believes that Kant has previously ruled out the image of "indigenous respondents": this is necessary for argument, but it has not become a part of argument. In Kant's criticism, Derrohe Mensch (like the example of the new Dutch and Tierra del Fuego residents) cannot be the subject involved in the article and inference, but Kant's investigation of this subject still needs the potential support of the example of "indigenous respondents". These analyses led to Hegel's thinking of "non-European races", which was regarded by Hegel as proof that the spirit moved from unconsciousness to consciousness. Spivak focuses on a part of the Bhagavad-gita, an Indian epic that Hegel once quoted to illustrate the lack of historical impetus of Indian civilization. Spivak put forward what she called "wrong reading" in rhetoric. She studied the passage in Song of Blessing with Hegel's research method, and came to the conclusion that both of them can be interpreted in this way-both of them manipulate history politically in order to reveal the law. In the works of Kant and Hegel, spivak found the possibility of "indigenous respondents" as evidence to support their research. On the contrary, she tried to explore these texts from the "possible (or impossible) perspective" of indigenous interviewees, and made progress in commenting on them.

Spivak's exposition of Marx is slightly different. She focuses on the way that non-European countries have the right to act as the historical driving force promised by Marx, and investigates the source and function of the term "Asian mode of production". The mode of production in Asia is not the result of prosperity, which is a very important definition of all Marx's works. It named "different" as "same" and "a term that is consistent with the development of capitalism and constitutes resistance to it". After explaining the general usage of the word "naming" in Marx's thought and recognizing the empirical criticism of this concept by historians, spivak turned the reader's attention to samir amin's works. Amin re-evaluated the European feudal system in theory, thinking that it was a weak and full of loopholes replica of the dominant Asian mode of production. He concluded that capitalism is a "dangerous supplement" to underdeveloped societies, such as those we see in Europe. According to Amin's works and comparing with other works, spivak wrote that the mode of production in Asia can be used as a tool to analyze and deconstruct Marx's texts: it makes us understand that the mode of production has many limitations as a concept, and at the same time, it causes rich thinking on the concept of "value".

In the third and fourth chapters, the focus of the discussion turns to the responsibility of post-colonial subjects and how these subjects obliterate or suppress indigenous interviewees. Spivak particularly criticized the way immigrants from the "third world" naturalized and served what she called "the dominant global capital". These post-colonial subjects claimed that they represented indigenous respondents, and they were accomplices in the new round of colonial exploitation by the former colonies, leaving the colonial people speechless. In view of this trend, spivak suggested that we should always distinguish between "internal colonization" of sovereign countries and colonization in other regions; She pointed out that while we are eagerly looking forward to domestic multiculturalism, we should also remember that it is not suitable for the complex situation of foreign nationalities. In the fourth chapter, spivak continues her criticism of Fredric Jameson's postmodern interpretation, which is convincing. First of all, spivak thinks that postmodernism is repetitive and fractured, and then revolves around Jameson's comments on Bonaventure Hotel, Van Gogh's shoes and Warhol's shoes (referring to Van Gogh's representative work "Farmer's Shoes" and Warhol's representative work "Diamond Dust Shoes", see Jameson's Cultural Logic of Postmodernism or Late Capitalism ") and Marx.

In a world where the distribution of power is seriously distorted, how can we perform best politically? On this issue, spivak's thinking is contrary to conventional wisdom, and the discussion on this issue has become the most disappointing part of the book. She sharply criticized the family planning policy, micro-credit for dependent women and measures to limit child labor, which would make European and American activists who feel good about themselves unhappy, but these policies came at the right time and forced them out of complacency. However, spivak's views always appear in a short form. Therefore, it is easy for development activists and organizations to ignore her argument, not to mention those multinational companies.

(translated by Dai Shadi/Xie Huayu)

3. Main works

In Other Worlds: Essays on Culture and Politics (1987),

Outside the teaching machine (1993),

Spivak card reader (1996),

Critique of Post-colonial Rationality: The Present History Towards Disappearing (1999),

The Death of a Discipline (2003), etc.