#spivak

Viviane Namaste observed that “the field of Anglo-American feminist theory has relied on transsexual women to ask theoretical questions since the 1990’s” (Namaste 12), with trans people often being not only excluded from participating in theory, but also actively discussed, used as a frame for asking epistemological questions. Namaste aims to not only critique this exclusion and way of theorizing, namely Judith Butler’s works, but also point out the political consequences of the rehashing of the “transgender question.”  Namaste critiques Butler as Gayatri Spivak does Deleuze, Foucault. Components of the system of Anglo-American feminist theory that Namaste describes bear a vague resemblance to the critique Spivak makes in her 1985 text Can The Subaltern Speak?, where she describes the subaltern’s position within contemporary theory just a generation prior. I see Can The Subaltern Speak? as a sort of predecessor, mayhaps even the progenitor of theory such as Namaste’s, and I see Namaste’s theory to be a sort of extension of the concept of subaltern studies. 

The subaltern in Spivak’s theory never adopts the dominant point of view or lexicon as reflective of its own identity, constantly remaining submissive to it while never totally submitting to its control. Subalterns are individuals who did not belong to the colonial elite in the context of India, such as lower rural gentry, poor landowners, rich peasants, and upper middle class peasants, and yet the subaltern is “irretrievably heterogenous.”(Spivak 26)

In Spivak, when the subaltern attempts to speak, their intended meaning is completely skewed because others are unwilling to listen to them. The idea of "voice" as a whole is formed by the "subject," and those who fall into the category of "the other" lack their own voice. Many assume that Spivak is positing that the disenfranchised are not capable of speaking for themselves, when in reality it's the privileged who are not capable of comprehending what the subaltern is saying. 

Spivak describes how Foucault and Deleuze have been equivocating in their arguments, contesting the idea that human beings are sovereign subjects with autonomous agency over their consciousness. In post-structuralist thought, human awareness is created discursively. The shifting discourses of power that continuously speak through us and put us in specific places and interactions are what shape our subjectivity. In this sense, we cannot say that we are our own authors. We don't create our identities; they are created for us. Therefore, the subject cannot be sovereign over the process of creating one's own identity. Instead, the subject is decentered since it constantly constructs its consciousness from viewpoints outside of itself. Therefore, the individual is an outcome of discourse rather than a clear depiction of the self. By giving people back a fully centered consciousness, Spivak contends that, shockingly for these figures, when Foucault and Deleuze discuss oppressed groups like the working classes, they revert to exactly the same naïve concept of "sovereign subjects." They believe that the work of intellectuals like themselves can act as a clear channel for the representation of the voices of the oppressed. The intellectual is portrayed as a dependable conduit for the words of the oppressed, a clear-speaking mouthpiece for the voiceless. 

Spivak emphasizes the importance of not falling for equivocation, pointing out the generalizations that philosophers like Foucault make when discussing the oppressed. Spivak explains her concerns by relating the "remotely managed, far-flung, and heterogeneous attempt to construct the colonial subject as Other"(Spivak 76) to Michel Foucault's concept of epistemic violence, where intellectual power creates the very subject it later controls through discursive action. 

This argument is in parallel to Namaste: trans people are central to the Anglo-Saxon feminist project similar to how the subaltern is central to the French post-structuralist project as well as social theory as a whole. In my reading of Undoing Theory, Namaste urges the reader to be wary of errors in equivocation, in regards to theory as well as statistics on violence towards trans people. She critiques Butler’s Undoing Gender in its attempt on “thinking about people who are often excluded from the very category of human” (Namaste 15), though its simplification on trans violence whilst using the issue as central to their whole theory. Namaste prefaces the meat of the text with a section on statistics regarding HIV rates and effects in trans women - which she points out as a different way of presenting theory on the matter - which in my personal reading of it, is more effective and confrontational to readers that are probably more accustomed to a mere skimming acknowledgement of harsh realities before being able to continue with their guilt-free intellectual inquiry. 

Namaste acknowledges that Butler does attempt to create knowledge useful to the victims of this violence, but also should “argue for the political function of a knowledge that makes visible such realities”(Namaste 16) - since as Mirha Soleil-Ross details, not every instance of violence towards trans people is gender-based necessarily, but that there are political and social systems that affect where trans people become situated within society, such as the the high rate of trans women turning to sex work for survival, or poverty and mental health statistics within trans populations. 

This dire argument for intersectionality is similar to Spivak’s statement on leftist intellectuals, describing how they romanticize the oppressed, essentialize the underprivileged and perpetuate the imperialist discourses they claim to be critical of. Spivak reminds us that a person's or group's identity is relational, a function of its location in a system of distinctions - to replace this leftist dream of an untouched or essential purity anchored in a particular group. The other always already exists in relation to the discourse that would label it as other; there is no such thing as a real or pure other. 

Namaste goes on to make her main point: that the Anglo-Saxon feminist theoretical canon has a gap where critique and acknowledgement of the role of labor should be, and that gender primacy makes a fallacy of feminist theory. She then argues that since Butler strives to examine the constitution of gender, ignoring labor is ignoring the ways in which the gender and physical embodiment of transsexual women is constituted and created through their work. They need work, money, to be able to go through the world as women. Butler’s statement about trans people of color experiencing violence in an inordinate amount also fails to acknowledge the ethnic makeup of geographic areas of violence, which can be used to either differentiate between race-based and gender-based violence or to acknowledge the contributing factors of both. Namaste argues that Butler’s simplification of violence against transgender people is not a useful model in undoing the perception of trans people as monolithic, mythical, and even less than human.  

According to Spivak, postcolonial studies are a fresh effort to liberate the other and provide that other the chance to experience and express those aspects of themselves that are distinct from what the dominant discourse has defined as their subjecthood. She questions the viability of such an endeavor. Can the "subaltern" speak—with or without the help of well-meaning intellectuals? Her frank response is no. Despite acknowledging the epistemic violence imposed out to Indian subalterns, Spivak argues that any effort made by the outside to improve their situation by allowing them collective speech will necessarily run into the following issues:

-A reliance on Western intellectuals to "speak for" the subaltern condition instead of letting subalterns speak for themselves.

-A hyper-generalized perception of cultural solidarity among a very heterogeneous group.

Spivak portrays Western capitalism and colonialism as having won. The economic, political, and cultural structures of the entire world have been modeled after Western discourses. The marginalization of the subaltern is reinforced rather than undermined by these discourses. Namaste takes a different approach to her own dilemma: she literally proposes a series of solutions as the first steps to undoing theory as we know it - and I think that’s something that could not have happened if Spivak and this new tradition of subaltern studies had never penetrated into the mainstream theoretical canon. 

Both Namaste and Spivak pick apart the epistemological issues in the post-structuralist works they are respectively critiquing. They both stress the importance of realizing the difference between actual empiricism (knowledge from personal experience) and experience in proximity to issues. Namaste describes how Butler’s work merely seems empirical, but has limitations and missing gaps, failing to acknowledge the force of labor, namely prostitution, in the regulation of trans lives.  She stresses the importance of a class conscious and class focused framework of trans theory, arguing that the regulation of public space is directly concerning “not only the repression and violence against transvestites and transsexuals, but also that directed against the homeless, street vendors, and street prostitutes.”(Namaste 23)

Spivak seeks to create a suitable representation of intellectual endeavor by turning to Freud. By showing us how the very identity of whiteness itself is established in part through the self-declared benevolence of colonial activity, Freud can be used to help advance our understanding of colonialism. He forewarns us subtly against constructing scapegoats or, alternatively, saviors. If white men are viewed as saviors and brown men are used as oppressors, the statement, "white men are saving brown women from brown men," serves to justify colonial interventions. A post-colonialist narrative might just as readily blame white males, which would inevitably result in brown men or brown women being presented as the heroes.

Spivak believes that Freud can help us to examine the dynamics of developing human connections without precluding narratives by assigning fixed roles (as both a positive and a negative example, because he himself did not always resist scapegoating). She continues to be wary of any attempts to correct and glorify the subaltern's unique voice by making assertions that they fill various roles such as victim, abjected other, scapegoat, rescuer, etc. The mobility of potential relationships and acts must always be kept in mind. Spivak's examination of Freud is presented "in recognition of these hazards" of reading and representing the other, not "as a solution."

The original text that popularized the Spivak pronouns. Michael Spivak didn't actually come up with these, but the name stuck.

The book that text is from, is a manual for typesetting software, published in 1990.

Turns out I've been mispronouncing these (I'm not a native English speaker), when it's really just a variation on they/them. Maybe I'll try them on myself.

Does anyone here use the pronouns “E, em, eir, emself “ ?

I usually see “I, they, them, their, themself” - is this more preferred ?

I identify as cis, so I do not want to use pronouns in my writing that may have connotations I’m not aware of. But as I’m trying to write more, I’d really prefer to take gender out of the conversation with a certain character.

Actually, all characters, I have weird deep-rooted anger at the concept of gender existing at all. I’m angry at the concept and at society and at the box I’m put in and that we have to talk about it at all and at the fact that I have the organs to become pregnant. But I’m not sure how to explain or express or write about it yet. Gender neutral pronouns seem like a good place to start.

Like, who would win in a fight?

Edit: Maybe I need that Ethics Board more than I thought.