>Eric Beck wrote:
>>Sounds like Spivak has been studying the collected works of Eddie Vedder
>>and Billy Corgan; that is, the school of popular, widely influential,
>>far-from-underdog intellectuals and artists* who trumpet their own (usually
>>imagined) oppression, the rhetorical goal being, of course, to point to
>>their daring and nonconformism.
>
>I think this overstates things a bit.
I agree. And comparisons to aesthetically challenged rock stars are just insulting. But I couldn't help myself.
>Spivak is pretty aware of her influence and prestige. One of her themes
>the other night was
>wondering why so many of her critics point to her allegedly
>privileged origin as a way of undermining her - something, as she
>rightly points out, that rarely happens to other writers.
Especially white, European-descended, male ones. Edward Said is confronted with this all the time, but usually it's by right-wingers.
>By her account, she's of middle class origin, and not of the landowning
>class as is sometimes claimed. Her theory is that her male critics
>(many of the South Asians in London) would love to call her a
>"ballbuster" or "castrating bitch," but they don't have the nerve, so
>they call her upper class instead.
>
>I find it a little odd to be in this position of defending her, since
>I don't know her work that well, but she does deserve to be taken
>seriously.
Oh, I do--or I would, if I knew her work. I have even been contemplating picking up her latest. But I guess what I was objecting to was her insistence on responding to her interlocuters on their level: they question her authenticity/credibility so she reasserts the validity of same; they doubt the depth of her oppression so she answers am so. Why bother? That only perpetuates the infighting and further distracts from the arguments that could be had over substantive differences. Though I understand the impulse, it seems to me counterproductive and endlessly frustrating to defend yourself instead of your work.
Of course, you could ask me why I don't attack her attackers instead, which is a good question that I don't have a good answer to. Probably because of my antifeminism leanings (that's for you Rakesh). Or maybe because of my kneejerk impulse to poke at pomoistas (which I'm trying to overcome). But, though it's been several months since I've read Eagleton's piece, I seem to recall several cogent, nonpersonal criticisms of Spivak that would ample blowing room to defend her theories. I'm sure others have also made valid criticisms.
Eric