Yoshie, I don't understand the point Spivak, Eagleton or you are making in the excerpt and comment below.
Believe this is where Spivak introduces her idea of 'strategic essentialism' by which it becomes possible to represent the subaltern as an actually autonomous subject whose 'unity' the narrated (and thus already mediated) autonomous revolt--exactly because it is *represented* as *autonomous*-- already simply assumes.
It seems that Spivak is assuming the critiques of the subject already carried out by Lacan, Foucault and Althusser and trying to work her way out of them in her defense of Guha's recovery of 'subaltern consciousness" and the 'autonomous' realm of the subaltern politics hitherto suppressed by colonial and bourgeois histiography--Angela: help!!
I think the relation of this idea to complicity as a technology of the self (whatever that means) is quite secondary to the point Spivak is making--which is this idea of strategic essentialism the meaning of which is unclear to me anyway perhaps until Angela intervenes.
At any rate, there seems that there is no entry into this debate without understanding the nature of the 'post humanist' critique of the subject that was carried out by Lacan, Foucault and Althusser. It seems obvious that Spivak's comments are for such a reader. Hope that I am remembering the questions at hand correctly since it's been more than five years since I read through this collection.
If I remember, Spivak is trying to protect the subaltern studies school from charges of a naive or 'circular' understanding of the subject consciousness that they have *attributed* to the subalterns whose 'autonomous' history they have already *narrated* as autonomous.
But I don't have an understanding of this specific kind of anti humanism thorough knowledge of which Spivak assumes (hence, my frustration in reading it more than five years ago) in this introductory essay--perhaps you, as well as Angela, do.
It seems to me that an indiscriminate attack on postmodernism or the pathological nature of complicity avowal do not help us focus in on the specific questions at hand. Here I think Ted Byfield's insistence that criticism is well focused on specific thinkers and problems--rather than postmodernism tout court--is salubrious. (By the way, Ted, Doug mentioned to me that you are the editor of Moishe Postone's magnum opus--you did a brilliant job; what do you think of the work of John Rosenthal?)
Yoshie, one more question: what do you make of Spivak's critique of the third world woman who does speak? Would think you would find this more interesting, no? Have been waiting eagerly for some time now of your criticism of this major idea of hers.
Yours, Rakesh