>Only racist idiots could think that Spivak is a representative of 1 billion
>people. Who has to be reminded of this? Why does she have to remind anyone
>of this?
unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't think they are and don the mantle of p-c studies, white students mind you, who do have to be reminded of this. i take it you haven't sat in too many lit crit classrooms? neither have i, but the two i sat in were composed entirely of white women and men. there was little discussion of the fact that the folks we were reading in the subaltern studies trad were members of the elite. at the time i was in a dept which had a significant minority of asian students, mostly chinese, but also taiwanese, korean and japanese who often spoke quite bluntly and unapologetically about the fact that they were, of course, from elite families. so, i raised the issue in one of the classrooms only to be berated as some sort of racist. "what? you think this is important? this is a criticism of their work, that they are members of the elite? what? don't you want to take responsibility for white imperialist racism. it doesn't matter how elite they are, their wealth and status is no match for what they must fight--global white imperialist racism"
do you see the problem rakesh? mine wasn't a racist remark, but i was taking quite seriously these claims about subject position and the problem of speaking for which, in my mind, certainly has a lot to do with class. i was trying to critique what i saw as an essentialism at work in post-c studies even as they imagined that they were engaging in a critique the subject, of humanism. there is a kind of moral entrepreneurship that takes place in order to shut certain critiques down and in this instance i think it has much to do with the attempt to silence class analyses in the academy. on that point i think eagleton and certainly spivak, said, etc have much of importance to say. it is not so much about whites in the US not taking responsibility for their own subject position vis-a-vis global capitalism, but their denial of it in terms of the US.
>Why don't other academics have to remind people of the class
>position or academic histories of their families? Is this only something
>third world women have to disclose?
i don't know but it is something that is seen as wholly irrelevant by a lot of people, iyam. in part, i think this is because by the time you get to graduate school everyone is pretty much from the uppermiddle class and, if not, you learn pretty quickly to shut up about it because it will get you no where.
so why disclose? what could be the point? we're all good, well intentioned white folks reading brown not dead women instead of dead white guys so proof positive, no doubt, that we've already unpacked our knapsacks of privilege, don't you think? what's the point? what can we do about it?
we're already reading the right authors? what more can you want? what do you want me to do give up the car my parents gave me? give you some of my money? and what does it matter to you anyway, just by virtue of being here you'll one day be uppermiddle class so what gives you the right to speak to working class issues? and besides, you're white, you can pass. no one has to know about your background. it didn't stand in your way did it, it's not like being a person of color.
those last four statements rakesh were actually said to me in a feminist theory classes when i tried to get people to talk about class--not just as an identity, but as a set of objective social relations within which we needed to understand class as an identity and the role of the academy in perpetuating these social relations.
don't know if i answered your questions, but i think essentialism runs too deep in these discussions and reminding people of the way it is often still operative is still important.
kelley