well, doug, i don't want to undermine her either. BUT, her own work, itself, was a critique of the fact that the subaltern studies group were elites theorizing and speaking in the name of the subaltern and the very problematic politics that are involved. she, herself, wrestles with the problem. i suspect she's right about the buoyz being threatened, but i'm not sure that criticism is a symptom of their terror.
this critique of the subalt st group wass what made me interested in her work to begin with, as i told rakesh. and, again, not that i'm equating subalterneity with white working class or people of color in the west, but the logic of her arguments can be used fruitfully to try to understand one's own weird liminality when you make the transition from the world of the white working class to the upper middle class white world of the academy. i mean, how do i say i'm white working class any longer? [yes, i know, i could simply adopt carrol's position on class analysis and the problem would be solved. by i don't see it that way and i won't for good solid theoretical reasons]
going through the socialization processes of the academy which, for those of you who were born into the white upper middle class was barely visible and traumatic in predictable ways, certainly changes someone for whom those socialization processes are designed to wipe out and destroy every vestige of the world they come from in terms of speech, dress, comportment, language use, values, etc. so, on that view alone, how can i speak of my self as and be thought by others and myself as speaking for the white working class? because that is what i'd often be asked to do, i got to be the representative of "classness" [who often didn't know how to successfully hide their stereotypes of what that identity menat to them] for those who enjoyed ethnic and sexual tourism in the name of multiculturalism.
"oh geez, kelley, we almost forgot about class analysis in our brown bag seminar on inclusiveness in the academy. can you come talk about what it's like to be from the working class in the academy next week, friday, noon?"
"say, kelley, maybe you can come talk about white working class men and sexism. you sure must know a lot about it from personal experience"
"kelley, would you be in charge of the affirmative action unit? when we do the plenary for that unit we think it'd be great to have you talk about how it must be confusing to be a woman and white working class. you must support it coz you're a woman and oppose it coz you're working class, right?"
oh well fuckmedead pal.
and furthermore, none of this is acutely problematic really unless you consider yourself a marxist and committed to a materialist, historical analysis of capitalism. and, of course, this was all the more reason to find spivak useful to me. not in order to claim status as subaltern, but in order to make connections between an analysis that is cognizant of important distinctions among the working class according to a marxist definition and one that recognizes that there are important differences among the working class that have a material basis located in the social organization of work and are not merely ideational.
a ps. to rakesh: i hardly find spivak's critique of the ways feminsit in the us supports the oppression of the third world weird. it's an old criticism and hardly one that's uniquely espoused by spivak. maybe i misread you.