>You mean they are all children of unionized factory workers. That's what
>upper middle class would mean in the WSJ. What do you mean by it?
yeah that's pretty much it carrol. i'm an idiote provacateur failure marxish academic. okay. got it.
rakesh writes:
>Yet from what you have quoted, it seems to me that the review is pretty
>insubstantive or rather it is about her and her authorial intention, not
>the book she wrote.
forgot to say this earlier: the book is a reflexive critique of post-colonial studies, the essentialism therein, and the tendency to avoid marxist class analyses in p-c studies. so the review *is* about the book she wrote. she's not writing about representations of third-world people. i don't see eagleton as speculating on her subaltern psychology but on her very real difficulties negotiating the institutional setting of academia in the US and criticizing her for failing to set forth some alternative rather than engaging in largely in critique.