Spivak and Postcolonial Critique

 In the past two weeks, we continued our discussion about Spivak's A Critique of Postcolonial Reason. We discussed her deconstructive reading of European philosophy and the advantages and limits of this form of reading. Additionally, we explored questions about Spivak's understanding of postcolonial critique and its possible differences in relation to decolonial critique. These were some of the highlights of our discussions:

Postcolonial Critique as negotiation: Spivak emphasizes the negotiating nature of postcolonial critique in the sense of critique not breaking apart, dismissing, and accusing the European colonial tradition, but entering a more nuanced and differentiated relationship with it that "suspends accusation" (98). Shouldn't "accusations" be an important part of the critique of canon nevertheless?  We asked ourselves: What are the advantages of the ambivalent approach to colonial thought history? There are also some interesting parallels to Dussel's concept of Transmodernity.

Marxism and Difference: Spivak's deconstructive reading of Marx opens up possibilities for postcolonial marxism. What is the role of difference in that Marxism, and to what degree would postcolonial marxism overcome the dogmas of orthodox Marxism?

Colonialism as "enabling violation": In an interview (The Present as History, Critical Perspectives on Global Power, p.176), Spivak characterizes British colonialism in India as an "enabling violation", arguing that she is not against the British but against "bad colonial policy". This perspective puts Spivak in an opposed position in relation to many anti-colonial and decolonial thinkers that regard colonialism as an absolute evil that has had only harmful effects. To what degree is Spivak's different understanding of colonialism a result of her focus on the Indian experience of colonialism and a result of geopolitical differences that need to be highlighted and analyzed through comparative studies? Her perspective develops a critique of the colonial violation, without denying that certain transformations after colonialism are also cases of progress and growth (for example technological advancements). 

Deconstruction and Postcolonialism

On February 2nd, 2021, we meet to discuss Gayatri Spivak's 2003 Critique of Postcolonial Reason. We began with the first section, which is entitled "Philosophy" and concerns itself with a reading of the concept of the "Native Informant" in the work of Immanuel Kant and his inheritors. Zeinab lead us through a discussion of the opening pages of this chapter, and touched upon Spivak's mode of reading texts as a primarily Deconstruction-oriented one. 

Zeinab moved on to discuss Spivak's reading of Kant, which located the Native Informant in the constitutive outside, or foreclosure, to be found in Kant's first Critique. This is to say that the Native Informant is defined by its absence, as though its presence is a forethought such that it cannot not be present in its absence. To put it another way, the Native Informant is assumed to be already known and defined, such that actually defining it or including it would be unnecessary. 

Discussion lead to questions about Deconstruction and its status as one mode of critique among others. Kate drew connections to George Lamming's novel The Emigrants, and this lead to a discussion of the Native Informant and whether it has an essence or is defined by its lack thereof. We took up the context of German history that Spivak is focused on, which is key for its own concern with narrating the nation of Germany as a late-comer to Europe. Puja pointed out that Spivak thematizes our own status as Native Informants within academia and the problems this leads to in our own research.