Indeed, but so what? I just wonder why intellectuals who work in English-speaking countries (especially in the USA) tend to get tied in knots about their being intellectuals and apologize for this fact in a convoluted way (e.g. accusing other intellectuals of being intellectuals, 'acknowledging complicity,' etc.). I find this rhetoric moralistic (the word 'complicity,' for instance, suggests something of prosecution in criminal justice). While I do not at all recommend that they go to the opposite extreme & adopt Adorno's insufferable attitude ("One must have tradition in oneself, to hate it properly....Late-comers and newcomers have an alarming affinity to positivism...."), spending too much time analyzing one's 'conditions for speaking' in an essay of cultural criticism has become a tiresome formula that I hope will go out of fashion soon. I think that Spivak would have more to offer if she were less bound to this sort of moralism (by herself and others), especially since she is one of the smarter postmodernist writers.
I just picked up Spivak's new book _A Critique of Postcolonial Reason_. In the preface she writes: "The first chapter looks at philosophy: how Kant foreclosed the Aboriginal; how Hegel put the other of Europe in a pattern of normative deviations and how the colonial subject sanitized Hegel; how Marx negotiated difference...." Might be interesting, but you say you haven't read Kant.... If you had, you wouldn't think of postmodernism as such a novelty.
Yoshie