— —

• •

— —

■ ■

© 1988 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois Manufactured in the Unhed States of America 12345CP54321
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Lbrary of Congress CataloginoHn-PuWication Data
Marxism and the interpretation of culture.

criticism. 5. Communist aesthetics. 6. Humanities—

1. Communism and culture. 2. Philosophy, Marxist. 3. Europe—intellectual life—20th century. 4. Marxist

Includes bibliographies and index.

Methodology. 7. Social sciences—Methodology. HX523.M3766 1988 306'.345 ISBN 0-252-01108-2 (cloth: alk. paper) ISBN 0-252-01401-4 (paper alk. paper)
I. Nelson, Cary. II. Grossberg, Lawrence.




Q«V«trt Chafcravorty Sptvak

Can the Subaltern Speak?




on«mal title or this paper was "Power Desire


ory: first, that the networks of power/desire/interest are so heterogeneous that their reduction to a coherent narrative is counterproductive—a per sistent critique is needed; and second, that intellectuals must attempt to disclose and know the discourse of society's Other. Yet the two systemat ically ignore the question of ideology and their own implication in intel
sovereign subject, the conversation between Foucault and Deleuze is framed by two monolithic and anonymous subjects-in-revolution: "A Maoist" (FD, 205) and "the workers' struggle" (FD, 217). Intellectuals, however, are named and differentiated; moreover, a Chinese Maoism is nowhere operative. Maoism here simply creates an aura of narrative specificity, which would be a harmless rhetorical banality were it not that the innocent appropriation of the proper name "Maoism" for the eccentric phenomenon of French intellectual "Maoism" and subsequent "New Philosophy" symptomatically
lectual and economic history. .Although one of its chief presuppositions is the critique of the

theoretical production and the unguarded practice ofconversation, enabling one to glimpse the track of ideology. The participants in this conversation emphasize the most important contributions ofFrench poststructuralist the

versation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deteuze."' I have chosen this friendly wtrhgngp between two activist phi f hi b i losophers of history because it undoes the opposition between authoritative

tions." The much-publicized critique of the sovereign subject thus actually inaugurates a Subject I will argue for this conclusion by considering a text by two great practitioners of the critique: "Intellectuals and Power. A Con

renders "Asia" transparent4

Deleuze's reference to the workers1 struggle is equally proble matic; it is obviously a genuflection: "We are unable to touch [power] in any point of its application without finding ourselves confronted by this diffuse mass, so that we are necessarily led ... to the desire to blow it up completely. Every partial revolutionary attack or defense is linked in this way to the workers' struggle" (FD, 217). The apparent banality signals a disavowal. The statement ignores the international division of labor, a ges ture that often marks poststructuralist political theory.1 The invocation of the workers' struggle is baleful in its very innocence; it is incapable ofdealing with global capitalism: the subject-production of worker and unemployed within nation-state ideologies in its Center; the increasing subtraction of the working class in the Periphery from the realization of surplus value and thus from "humanistic" training in consumerism; and the large-scale pres ence of paracapitalist labor as well as the heterogeneous structural status of agriculture in the Periphery. Ignoring the international division of labor; rendering "Asia" (and on occasion "Africa") transparent (unless the subject is ostensibly the "Third World"); reestablishing the legal subject ofsocialized capital—these are problems as common to much poststructuralist as to struc turalist theory. Why should such occlusions be sanctioned in precisely those

intellectuals who are our best prophets of heterogeneity and the Other?

comments on Baudelaire's comparable politics by way of quotations from

simple valorization ofany desire destructive ofany power. Walter Benjamin

up power at any point of its application. This site is apparently based on a

The link to the workers' struggle is located in the desire to blow

Moreover.Gayatri Chakravorty SpivaK laire's political insights do not go fundamentally Deyond the insights of these professional consoiratons He could perhaos have made Flaubert's statement. . In this context. wnen me connection be. as they cannot of the omciai rep Baude soverament. the oo. waiersheds a strong or "hard" currency. production ol the desinng machine. Desire ana its object arc a unity: u IS :3C macrnne as'a nected machine so that the product is lifted from me process of producing.7 reorodLon of ta W C ^ ldC°iOgy f0r me workcrs.w«n desrc ana the subject is taken as irrelevant or merely reversed. power. UnK t0 the workers" struggle is located.uon 01 desire.-. fe slrilh. but also at the same time. ■ The reproduction of labour power requires not onlv a re created an umortunate resistance m Foucault's work to "mere" ideoloacal jQsome conunuous stream of intellectual history. the subject-effect that surreptitiously emerges is much like me generalized ide ological subject ot the theorist This may be the legal sumect oi socialized capital. iheoretical enlightenment of the worKers as to their class interests.e revolt.4 resentatives [Reprdsentamenj of the panv.-eory oi wmch is necessary for an understanding of iniereas) is sinkine «t consistent. It is certainly not the desiring subject is Other.ect of desire also a con -•nnquc Western speculations on the ideological reproduce of social rejnons belong to that mainstream.' This commitment has The failure of Deieuze and Guattan to consider the relations oetweea desire. me suoiect that is laclane 3y repression. and subjectivity renders them incapable of articu■aung a theory oi interests. holding a "strong" ^assDort usitu- This definition docs not alter the speciridtv of the aesinng subject orleftovcr suoject-effect) that attaches to specinc instances of desire or to production o. Thus their anger—not proletarian out piebian—at the habits notrs iblack coats). simply. revising the one offered by psychoanalysis: ""esire aoes not lack :n desire. Deieuze and Guattan have attempted an alternative aefin. [he more or less educated people who represent [venreiem that siae ot the movement and of whom they can never Decome entirely independent. It is. in desire anything. Desire is machine."'' nactune oi a machine." ais own. rather. their indifference to ideoloay (a . neither labor nor management. "Of all ot politics 1 understnnd only one mine: :. Foucauifs commitment to "genealogical" speculation pre:nts him from locating. nomad subject. and something detaches itself from producing to proauct ana saves a leftover CO the vagabond. . and it is within this tradition that Al-lusser writes.Md a reproaucDon of to manipulate the ruling ■dcology correctly for the agents of 273 . or aesire that lacks a rued subject: :aere is no rued suoiect except -i T?C. Thev have no oiher aim but the immediate one of overthrowing ice existing elsewhere. with supposedly unonestioned access to due process. ana they profoundly despise me -nore Mara continues in his description of the cansoiraieurs de profession as follows: ". it does not lack us object. in -'great names" like Marx and Freuo.

An undifferentiated desire is the agent. Foucauit often seems to conflate "individual" and "sub ject". they are equally obliged to produce a me chanically schematic opposition between interest and desire. animating an effectively heliocentric discourse. fills the empty place of the agent with the historical sun of theory. ushers in the unnamed Subject at least for those intellectual workers influ enced by the new hegemony of desire. 206. the state and war-machines (mille plateaux). because interest always follows and finds itself where desire has placed it" (FD.and accumulation of knowledge" {PK 102). 215).n The mechanical relation between desire and interest is clear in such sentences as: "We never desire against our interests. What happens to the critique of the sovereign subject in these pronouncements? The limits of this represe nationalist realism are reached 274 . at a particular moment. And that radiating point." Foucauit adds that "the masses know perfectly well." Foucauit articulates another corollary of the disavowal of the role of ideology in reproducing the social relations of production: an unques tioned valorization of the oppressed as subject. produces positive effects at the level of desire—and also at the level of knowledge" {PK 59). clearly"—once again the thematics of being undeceived—"they know far better than [the intellectual] and they certainly say it very well" {FD. Because desire is tacitly defined on an orthodox model. Because these philosophers seem obliged to reject all arguments naming the concept of ideology as only schematic rather than textual. Even Reich implied notions of collective will rather than a di chotomy of deception and undeceived desire: "We must accept the scream of Reich: no. This parasubjective matrix. Because of the power of the word "power. will provide for the domi nation of the ruling class 'in and by words* [par la parole}. 215). 207). In the name of desire. too. they reintroduce the undivided subject into the dis "TV ^ course of power. and power slips in to create the effects ofdesire: "power. as well as in the "effective instruments for the formation continuistic "unconscious'1 or a parasubjective "culture. Foucauit cannot.. "to establish conditions where the prisoners themselves would be able to speak. the masses were not deceived. it is unitarily opposed to "being deceived.'1'* When Foucauit considers the pervasive heterogeneity of power.10 and the impact on his own metaphors is perhaps intensified in his followers. cross-hatched with heterogeneity." as Deleuze admiringly remarks. admit that a developed theory of ideology recognizes its own material production in institutionality. they actually desired a fascist regime" (FD. he does not ignore the immense institutional heterogeneity that Althusser here attempts to schematize. in speaking of alliances and systems of signs. so that they. The race for 4tthe last instance" is now between economics and power. however. the "object being. Thus they align themselves with bourgeois sociologists who fill the place of ideology with a exploitation and repression. Similarly. the Subject of Europe.." Ideology as "false consciousness" (being deceived) has been called into question by Althusscr. These philosophers will not entertain the thought of constitutive contradiction—that is where they admittedly part company from the Left. Dcleuze and Guattari are opening up that very field." Such slips become the rule rather than the exception in less careful hands." Foucauit admits to using the 'metaphor of the point which progressively irradiates its sur roundings.

The signifier "reoresentauoD" :s a case in roinL in the same dis missive tone that severs theory's link to the signirjer. representation and re-presentz aon.. the concrete ■-'xpenence that is the guarantor of the poiiticai appeal of nnsoners." !ndeea. If such a critique and such a project are not to be given up." "wh*i actually happens. . bundation of advanced capita :st neocolonialism—io dennt us own arena and schooichildren is disclosed througn the concrete e. Considering thai the historical role of the intellectual.': Neither Deleuze nor Foucauli seems aware that the intellectual within socialized capital. To cover over me aisconnnuity with an analogy that is presentea as a proof reflects again a oaraaoxical subjectpnvileguig. on the one hand." no "'theorizing intellectual . such a declaration helps only the :ae concrete experience of the oppressed. the shifting distinctions between representation within the state ana political 275 . is always a mul"jpiiciry. can help consolidate the international division of labor. These two senses of representation—*iinin state formation md the law.5ca erouo. 206). 212). union" can rep resent "those who act and struggle" f FD. as "concrete experience. is maintainea by a verDai slippage. in a Dolice siation" <FD.'3 There is no more representation. and in suoject-nreaicanon. | one re-oresennng real ty aaequateiy). 206-1). in a school. If this is. as can the '^analiry of leftist intellectuals' lists of self-knowing politically canny subUterns stands revealed: representing them." *Jie ±eory and action of practice wnich relate to eacn omer as reiavs and form r-. It is when sigmners are left to look after themselves mat veroai slippages . soldiers.etwoncs ' (FD. wnile being so uncritical about The unrecognized contradiction wiihin a position that valorizes intellectual anxious to prove that intellectual labor is iusi like manual labor. in a prison. Are those wno act and struggle auie. Nothing to do with the signiner" (FD. on tne other—are related but irreducibly discontinuous. . ms articuiauon of it is proolemauc. ne verbalism of the theoretical world ana its access to any world denned igainst it as ■'practical" is irreducible. 238).n barracks. ana rerjresentation as "re-oresen■Jinon.. Since theory is aiso oniv "iction. indeed. the iiiDject is not seen as a representative consciousne^. ." Because "the person who speaks and acts .)enence of ihe in tellectual. Thus Deleuze makes this remarkable pronouncement: "A theory is like a box of tools. . It has helped positivist empiricism—Lhe justifying ■-vith Deleuze: "Reality is what actually happens in a factory.lappen. brandishing oncrete experience.aaon as "speaking for. 2C6)? These immense problems are buried in the differences between the "ame"1 words: coniciousness ana conscience (both conscience in Frencn). the one who diagnoses the episteme. mere's noining out action"—'"action of ±eoretician does not represent [speak for) the 0Dnr"<-. as opposed to those wno act ana spea/c [FD.Chakravortv 3plv«k . Deleuze's argument.. indeea. The ennaue of ideological supject-constiruaon within state active theoretical practice of the ■'transformation of consciousness." as in an or philosoDny." The formations and systems of political economy can now oe effaced. Two senses of representation are being run togetnen represen. Yet an important point is ceing made here: the production of theory is aiso a practice: the oDposmon oetween aostraci 'pure" theory and concrete "■applied" practice is too auick ana easy. the intellectuals represent themiclves as transparent. [or] parry c." as in politics. Deleuze declares. This foreclosing of 'he necessity of the difficult taskofcounterhegemonic ideological produaion lot noi been saiutary.

"in so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that cut off their mode of life."11 There is no such thing as a "class might be considered the arena of "instinct. they 276 . where Marx touches on "class" as a descriptive and transformative concept in a manner somewhat more complex than Althusser's distinction between class instinct and class position would allow. ihey form a class. Darsteilen belongs to the first constellation." is discontinuous with. Class consciousness does not individual subject. continuing the quotation from The Eigh small peasant proprietor class finds its "bearer" in a "representative" who the contrast. Utopian politics. Marx is obliged to construct models of a teenth Brumaire. In fact. Marx's contention here is that the descriptive definition of a class can be a differential one—its cutting off and difference from all other classes. between a proxy and a portrait There is. is also working on the structural principle of a dispersed and dislocated class subject: the (absent collective) consciousness of the The following passage. on the oiher. In the guise of a post-Marxist description of the scene of power. of course. the actor and the orator. their interest. especially in order to say that beyond both is where oppressed subjects speak. they are related. say. the differential isolation of classes. Let us consider the play of vertreten ("rep resent" in the first sense) and darsteilen ("re-present" in the second sense) in a famous passage in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. this sharpens the contrast Foucault and Deleuze slide over. the collectivity of familial existence. but run ning them together. leads to an essentialist."" My point is that Marx is not working to create an undivided subject where desire and interest coincide. The word "representative" here is not "darsteilen". we thus encounter a much older debate: between representation or rhetoric as tropology and as per suasion. one far more pertinent to the France of the 1970s than it can be to the international periphery. In this context. Both in the economic area (capitalist) and in the with each other. Again. have both been seen as harmful. vertreten—with stronger suggestions of substitution—to the second. This agency or interest is tied to the Hegelian critique of the without a subject which is history and political economy. though operated by. using "vertreten" where the English use "represent. and know for themselves. and their formation from those of the other classes and place them in inimical confrontation (feindlich gagenuberstetlen}. for it marks the subject's empty place in that process operate toward that goal. the formation of a class is artificial and economic. and the eco instinct" at work here. a appears to work in another's interest. and within the theory of the Subject.economy. one that has received political and ideological exacerbauon in the European tradition at least since the poet and the sophist. on the one hand. which nomic agency or interest is impersonal because it is systematic and heter ogeneous." discussing a social "subject" whose consciousness and Vertretung (as much a substitution as a representation) are dislocated and inco herent: The small peasant proprietors "cannot represent themselves. act. Here the capitalist is denned as "the conscious bearer (Trdgerj of the limitless movement of capital. relationship between them. A celebrated passage like the description of capital as the Faustian monster bnngs this home vividly." divided and dislocated subject whose parts are not continuous or coherent political (world-historical agent). must not be obliterated. \ '-1 v-s Here is Marx's passage.

as Marx does in The Eighteenth Brumaire-can only It would be merely tendentious to argue that this textualizes Marx too much. a victim ofcommon sense. ±e identity or their interests fails to produce a feeiing of community . be appreciated if they are not conflated by a sleight of word." I uave been trying to point out that the uncommon "man... "the historical tradition" in the air. as an authority over them.. since there is no unified class subject) of the small peasant proonetors therefore tinds its last expression [the implication of a chain of substitutions— Vertretungen—is strong here] in the executive force [E. making him inaccessible to the common "man. on the necessity for deadversary. is so deeply placed in a heritage of positivism that Marx's irreducible emphasis on the work of the negative. The necessarily dislocated machine of history moves because "the laentitv of the interest?' of these proprietors "fails to produce a feeling of community. national links.." The complicity of Vmreten and Darsteilen. In so tar as ." This intercourse" thus holds the place of the exchange leading to the production of surplus value. philosophically speaking." the contemporary pnilosopner of practice." Not only does such a model of social indirection-necessary gaps femhinng the concrete. theyform a ciass. or a political organization. is persistently wrested from him by the strongest The gravity of the problem is apparent if one agrees that the development of a transformative class "consciousness" from a descriptive c ass "position" is not in Marx a task engaging the ground level of con sciousness.. The political influence (in the place 01 the class interest. Full class agency (if ness on the ground level." who. Class consciousness remains with the feeiing of community that oelongs to national links and political organizations." which is. a "placenolder" for use value " Natural exchange" is contrasted to "intercourse with society. and it is in the area of this intercourse that the feeling of community leading to class agency must be develooed. a desiring identity of the agents and their interestthe identity whose absence troubles Foucauit and Deleuze.. the "representative" (Louis Napoleon).xe>cutivs>ewait-\ess per sonal in German] subordinating society to itself. there were such a thing) is not an ideological transformation of conscious tatory replacement as well as an appropnation (a supplementation) of some- .nev do not jorm a class. It is a contes277 sometimes exhibits the same positivism. and the histoncai-political phenom must be represented. as unrestricted governmental power that protects them from the other classes and senas them rain and sunshine trom above." where the word "intercourse" (Verkehr) is Marx's usual word for "commerce. the family here is constellated with wnat Marx calls "natural exchange. their ldennty-indifference as the place of practice—since this comoiicirv is precisely what Marxists must expose. Although not identified with nature. Their representative must appear simultaneously as their master. taking its place in the gap between the formation of a (descriptive) class and the nonformation of a (transformative* class: "In so tar as millions of families live under economic conditions ot existence that separate their mode of life . not to that other feeling ot community whose structural model is the family. enon (executive control)-imply a critique of the subject as individual agent between the source of"influence" (in this case the small peasant proprietors)." The event of representation as i enretung (in the constellation of rhetoric-as-persuasion) behaves iike a Darsteilung (or rhetonc-as-trope). .Gayatri Chakravorty Spivafc but a critique even of the subjectivity of a collective agency.

that a man named Napoleon would restore all their glory And an valid in their proper name [im eigenen Namen]. Representation in the economic coniext is Darstellung. is part of the masculine frame within which Marxism marks its birth. signification which relates to the divided subject in an indirect way. thing that is ' artificial" to begin with-"economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life."2' 278 the formed yet unformed class's faith in the natural father is gainsaid I have dwelt so long on this passage in Marx because it spells out the inner dynamics of Vertretung. com spect lor the nascent critique of individual and collective subjective agency. which commands that "inquiry into paternity is forbidden." restore the category of the sovereign subject of a monolithic collectivity of "women" in the list of the oppressed whose unfracrured subjectivity allows them to speak for themselves against an In the context of the development of a strategic. But if we subtract their use-value from the product of labour we obtain their value. indeed. contemporary invoca tions ol "libidinal economy" and desire as the determining interest. and second-level "consciousness." Marx uses the concept of the patronymic always within the broader concept of representation as Vertretung.bined with the practical politics of the oppressed (under socialized capital) No doubt the exclusion of the family. artificial. Conversely. The projects of class consciousness and of the transformation of conscious ness are discontinuous issues for him. Nor does the solution lie in the positivist inclusion equally monolithic "same system. his only proper agency) "because he carried [/nto-the word used for the capitalist's relationship to capital] the Napoleonic Code. the philo sophical concept ot representation as staging or." within the theory that seems most to question it. The common ele ment which represents itself [sich darstelit) in the exchange relation or the it is according to a strict observance of the historical Law of the Father that . the family's role in patriarchal social relations is so heterogeneous and contested that merely replacing the family in this problematic is not going to break the frame. albeit a family belonging id a specific class formation. whether through a parlia ment or through a convention." The absence of the nonfiunilial artificial collective proper name is supplied by the only proper name "historical tradition" can offer-the patronymic itself—the Name of the Father "His peasant proprietors "are therefore incapable of making their class interest exenange value of the commodity.The small individual turned up"-the untranslatable "esfandsich"(there found itself an individual?) demolishes all questions of agency or the agent's connection with his interest-"who gave himself out to be that man" (this pretense is." Marx's formulations show a cautious re "speaking for themselves. one should note the textual subtlety of the passage. by contrast. as it was just determined [besiimmtj. is thus its value. or representation in the political context.10 Historically as well as in today's global political economy. It is the Uw of the Father {the Napoleonic Code) that paradoxically prohibits the search for the natural father Thus im&-- torical tradition produced the French peasants' belief that a miracle would occur." While Marx here seems to be working within a patriarchal metaphorics. The most obvious passage is well known: "In the exchange relationship [Austauschverhdltnisl ofcommodities their exchange-value appeared to us totally independent of their usc-value.

capitalist exploitation must be seen as a variety of dominanon (the mechanics of power as such). it is maintained by 279 H . ~he reduction of Marx to a benevoiem Dut aatea . Con sssaiy and surplus labor. in parts of the Ann-Oedipus. in =cping the area of class pracuce on a second level of abstraction. and the seif-oraximate. They must noie now me staging of . its Darsteilunz—dissimuates the choice ofand need for "heroes. the intellectuals. this seems more recu- wesson ot representations rather than reintroduce the individual subject My view is that radical practice should anena to mis double resentaaon. then. Marx was in effect keeping open the (Kantian and) Hegelian cntiaue of the in-ividual subject as agent. To move toward uuanan build their case on a brilliant if "poetic" 5rasp of Marx's theory of :ormanons that micrologicaily and often erraticailv oDerate the'inieresis that congeal the macrologies. ii is aiso my view that.." Deleuze suggests.he money torai. who are neither of these S/ subjects. the issue ^ems to be mat tiiere is no ret> Deen aispatchea? There is. theory is a relay of practice (thus laying problems oi theorencal practice to rest) ana the oDpressea can know and speaic for themselves. "was to determine the problem (that power is more diffuse nan the structure of exploitation and siate formationj essentially in terms oi interests (power is held by a ruling class denned by its interests)" (FD. in the absence of a iheory of exploitation as the uraction 'production). 3eleuze and iined labor (which is rigorously distinguished from human activity).This view does not orjlige me to ignore that. This reintroduces the constitutive surjfect on at <east two levels: the Subjea of desire and power as an irreducible meth odological presupposition. -The thrust of Marxism. appropriation. agents of power— . under capitalism. is computed as the representation/sign of objec- Gayatri Chakravorry Sptvak According 10 Marx.Further. sub ject of the oppressed.:gure most often serves the interest of launching a new theorv of interpretation In the oucauli-Deleuze conversation. Marx Himself rehearses an ancient suDterfuge. no sign-structure ooeranng expenence." paternal oroxies.enretung.versely. no sigmner (Is it to be presumed mat the sigmrier has aiready thus might one lay semiotics to rest?).he world in representation-its scene of writing. Yet we might consolidate our critique in the following way: the relationship between global capitalism fexmoitation in economics) and nation-state alliances (domination in geopolitics) is so macrological that ii cannot account lor the micrological texture of power. value. and realization of (surplus) value as represen tation oi labor power. by mplicitiy denning the family ana the motner tongue as tnearouna level vnere culture and convennon seem natures own wav of organizing "her" >wn subversion. ■hrough totalizing concepts of rower and desire. Such theories cannoi aribra 10 ovenooK the cate such an accounting one must move toward theories of ideology-of subject gory ot representation in its two senses. and ■■m or poststmcturalist claims to critical practice.J In the conjerable than the clandestine restoration or subjective essenuaiism. for thev merely report on UW nonrcpresented subjea and analyze (witnout anaivzmg) the woridngs of ithe unnamed Subiect lrreducibly presuDposca bv) power ana desire The produced "transparency" marks the piace of "interest". as produced in nec- One cannot object to this minimalist summary of Marx's project. if not self-identical. ". just as one cannot ignore that. become transparent in the relay race.

curiously sewn together into a transparency by denegations. but it doesn't much matter for my notion of the apparatus to be able to say that this is discursive and that isn't. given that my problem isn't a linguistic one" (PK 198). if you like. In the face of the possibility that the intellectual is complicit in the persistent constitution of Other as the Selfs shadow.. but also by the institution of the law. when it The clearest available example of such epistemic violence is the remotely orchestrated. the role of insurgency and rebellion. the peculiar tone of denegation is heard. and universal witness is one which I absolutely refuse to adopt. It is not only that everything they read. far-flung." to see the economic factor as irreducible as it reinclaims to be the final determinant or the transcendental signified.14 I add to Said's analysis the notion of the suncptitioua subject of power and desire marked by the transparency of the intellectuaL Curiously enough. It is impossible for contemporary French intellectuals to imagine the kind of Power and Desire that would inhabit the unnamed subject of the Other of Europe." Foucault responds. however imperfectly. could occupy (invest?) its itinerary—not only by ideological and scientific production. and power (of knowledge) covery that should make us diagnose the economic (conditions of existence that separate out "classes" descriptively) as a piece of dated analytic ma chinery may well be to continue the work of that dislocation and unwittingly to help in securing "a new balance of hegemonic relations. Said's critique of power in Foucault as a captivating and mystifying category that allows him "to obliterate the role of classes. belongs to the exploiters' side of the international division of labor. To Jacques-Alain Miller's suggestion that "the institution is itself discursive.27 II scribes the social text. judge." is most pertinent here. Why this conflation of language and discourse from the master of discourse anal ysis? Edward W. Here. "Yea. the French intellectuals forget at their peril that this entire overdetermined enterprise was in the interest of a dynamic economic sit be ruthlessly dislocated. a possibility of political practice for the intellectual would be to put the eco . motives (desires).-■ nomic "under erasure. great care was taken to obliterate the textual ingredients with which such a subject could cathect. even as it is erased. It is also that. too. whereas "Foucault's project essentially is a challenge to the leading role of both hegemonic and oppositional intellectuals."1* I shah* return to this argument shortly.. The refusal of the sign-system blocks the way to a developed theory of ideology." One responsibility of the critic might be to read and write so that the impossibility of such interested individualistic refusals of the institutional privileges of power bestowed on the subject is taken seriously. and heterogeneous project to constitute the 280 .. Paul Bove faults Said for emphasizing the importance of the in tellectual. critical or uncritical. This S/subject. To invoke that dislocation now as a radical dis uation requiring that interests. supporting or critiquing the constitution of the Subject as Europe. is caught within the debate of the production of that Other.vehement denegation: "Now this role of referee. in the constitution of that Other of Europe."131 have suggested that this "challenge" is deceptive precisely because it ignores what Said emphasizes—the critic's institutional responsibility. the role of economics. However reductionistic an economic anal ysis might seem.

281 vocation of sruti technically recited (or reopened) the event of orSnary heanng or revelation. beneath the required level mr^t.the final ? ^C ^t?™ . Legal theorists and practi- ™!f ^°JZ^'CXCh*D**)'necessarily continuous orb**0 n«^ Everv inThe Origins ofwhat bad identical. I arbiter and a critique ofdisciplinary formations. sastra (the learned-from-another). The legitimation of the body of law or four ways of "T ccrtain tf «"• structure d«cnbed the i oner as an example of epistemic violence. cultures. located low down on the hierarchy.the subtext of the palimpsestic narrative of imperialism be recognized as quaafied as inadequate to their task or insufficiently elaborated: naive of cognition or scientificiry" (PK 82). it is well known that Foucault locates epistemic violence. and vyavahark o^a^Ul!T^0l1^I^0nnanCC-isEternally" noncoherent an5 open at both ends. the narrative of codification .. wh« 222SK? ^?gUa8C8^ePO^m of concrete expenence asespecially ?* ** UxM tools fora dncoieur.!?r "i. including two years of graduate work. a complete overhaul of the epis- colonial subject as Other.^?would maintain that my chieffiedy entCTtolhe **«*«* ofpositivist" L °W ^ °nC Cannot project is point out the "motivattons. nations. insofar as if can ^described as a unitary system. To elaborate on this. let us consider briefly the underpinnings of the British codification of Hindu Law «fl!rrKi^. then.. 71Z1 . This project is also the asymetncal obliteration Gayatri Chakravorty Sptvafc subjugated knowledge. a hold on absence of advanced disciplinary training." But what if that particular redefinition was only a part of the narrative of history in Europe as weU as in the colonies? What if the two projects of epistemic overhaul worked as dislocated and unacknowledged parts of a vast two-handed engine? Perhaps it is no more than to ask that teme. Yet the Indian case cannot that may be invoked as the Other of Europe as Self.ormed-were seen as dialectically continuous. through a binary vision. and what was remembered were not -mn«(Uie remembered).. Her«. Hindu law.80001"11 Of h0W M "PtaMnon and narrative of reality Jie narrative of history as imperialism as the best version of history » It This is not to describe "the way things really were" or to privilege -here. I turn to Indian material becau* in the 1™.. My Indian example could thus ideahst variety of such nostalgia. that accident of birth and edu- be taken as represemauve of all countries. and university education currently afloat in humanistic disciplines is orten openly ethnic I was born oes seen as a nostalgic investigation of the lost roots of mv own identity was established as the normative one. is a schematic summary of the epistemic violence of caaon has provided me with a sense of the historical canvas. century. The second two texts-the learned and thTper. and the like tl T^T°n «**?*}*"•mi clarifi« the notion ofepistemic See my hnal discussion of widow-sacrifice may gain added significance ^J^mf* ePutOT5df5ned ^ »« subiea's use ofmemory: sruti (the hewd) At the end of the eighteenth century." "a whole set of knowledges that have Sendis«4ui«w icvei imowledges. operated in terms offour texts that "staged" todTy^ or\? my ^ settling a dispute. in the redefinition of sanity at the end of the Eurooean eighteenth of the trace of that Other in its precarious Subject-iviry. ^ * ?W disclaimers: to «« Ul"ted States the third-worldism Si? ■ i"? naaytd m* Pnmary. secondary.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful