What do you think?
Rate this book
A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present
Are the “culture wars” over? When did they begin? What is their relationship to gender struggle and the dynamics of class? In her first full treatment of postcolonial studies, a field that she helped define, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, one of the world’s foremost literary theorists, poses these questions from within the postcolonial enclave.
“We cannot merely continue to act out the part of Caliban,” Spivak writes; and her book is an attempt to understand and describe a more responsible role for the postcolonial critic. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason tracks the figure of the “native informant” through various cultural practices―philosophy, history, literature―to suggest that it emerges as the metropolitan hybrid. The book addresses feminists, philosophers, critics, and interventionist intellectuals, as they unite and divide. It ranges from Kant’s analytic of the sublime to child labor in Bangladesh. Throughout, the notion of a Third World interloper as the pure victim of a colonialist oppressor emerges as sharply suspect: the mud we sling at certain seemingly overbearing ancestors such as Marx and Kant may be the very ground we stand on.
A major critical work, Spivak’s book redefines and repositions the postcolonial critic, leading her through transnational cultural studies into considerations of globality.
“We cannot merely continue to act out the part of Caliban,” Spivak writes; and her book is an attempt to understand and describe a more responsible role for the postcolonial critic. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason tracks the figure of the “native informant” through various cultural practices―philosophy, history, literature―to suggest that it emerges as the metropolitan hybrid. The book addresses feminists, philosophers, critics, and interventionist intellectuals, as they unite and divide. It ranges from Kant’s analytic of the sublime to child labor in Bangladesh. Throughout, the notion of a Third World interloper as the pure victim of a colonialist oppressor emerges as sharply suspect: the mud we sling at certain seemingly overbearing ancestors such as Marx and Kant may be the very ground we stand on.
A major critical work, Spivak’s book redefines and repositions the postcolonial critic, leading her through transnational cultural studies into considerations of globality.
464 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
63 people are currently reading
3332 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 15, 2011
At times, I thought this book was just plain mean. It was painful to read. I think it makes some good points, but I can't be sure, since I can't understand what Spivak is saying most of the time. We read one chapter a week, and spent three hours discussing the chapter we read for each week, and I still felt completely bewildered through most of the book. I think people who have written since Spivak, and who use her work are probably better to read for most people.
March 18, 2013
A book that needs a super human being with extraordinary mental abilities (apparently not me!) to understand. And of course I mean it sarcastically. At some points, I thought I was not reading English at all. Spivak is either extremely smart or intentionally showing off.
December 20, 2010
Consider what Spivak says about the two-handed engine of the colonialist palimpsest - the structure of the "Carceral", which underlies and predetermines the development of all social forms. As we begin fully to think through the various ways that colonial rule subjugated native populations: making certain indigenous bodies into "$ubjects" by educating them and training them for governmental service, while simply overtly oppressing the vast majority. If we can grasp the difference between Fanon's (the foremr) and Spivak's (the latter) uses of the term "subaltern", suddenly it becomes possible for us to see that the same complex institutionalization which veritably manufactured colonial subjectivity is not something that "happened" only to other people - and I put 'happened' in scare quotes because in fact there was no $ubject prior to its inception date. This same process of subjugation is also exactly what happened to us. It is by way of a radical dialectical encounter with the "other" than we come to discover just how much we have in common with her, not because we share any universal human nature, but rather because her subjugation and subjectivity reveal to us the startling truth of our own inception.
The problem Spivak (and elsewhere Bhabha) try to address is this, What happens when the "$ubject" learns that the most insidious and powerful shackle of all is Education, which is to say the very process of Progress and Self- or Mutual-Improvement whereby the $ubject came to consciousness and developed an identity at all? What does one do once one has removed one's own education? - as if this could be done at all! What then is left? Once we - fully equipped with the stock of corporately manufactured memories we call "national character," "cultural memory," "ethnic heritage" and "regional history" - discover that we are all replicants; "What [to quote Spivak and Bhabha quoting Lenin] is to be done?" The answer to that question is no easy one.
The problem Spivak (and elsewhere Bhabha) try to address is this, What happens when the "$ubject" learns that the most insidious and powerful shackle of all is Education, which is to say the very process of Progress and Self- or Mutual-Improvement whereby the $ubject came to consciousness and developed an identity at all? What does one do once one has removed one's own education? - as if this could be done at all! What then is left? Once we - fully equipped with the stock of corporately manufactured memories we call "national character," "cultural memory," "ethnic heritage" and "regional history" - discover that we are all replicants; "What [to quote Spivak and Bhabha quoting Lenin] is to be done?" The answer to that question is no easy one.
June 12, 2016
A book that stands up for the 'native informant' but consistently forecloses her. Absolutely unreadable, poorly constructed, poorly argued, full of neologisms that prove nothing. The reader is expected to reach the conclusion that the people of the decolonized-neocolonized world have to speak for themselves and that the available discursive frameworks of Kantian modern philosophy are unsuitable for this but then, it suddenly appears that the lone carrier of the light of foreclosed knowledge is Derrida, the most intractable and, consequently, least useful of all major western thinkers. Spivak has spent decades of intellectually-challenging cultural critique in writing books and essays that may produce no impact whatsoever on the real decision-making of our times.
Read
June 6, 2016It sucked goat dong.
September 13, 2023
Teilweise sehr schwer nachzuvollziehen, Spivaks Ideen sind sehr interessant und wohl auch komplex, aber selbst mit Vorwissen fand ich mich oftmals verloren, muss man wohl nochmal ran.
September 25, 2025
Have to reflect on this before even writing a review. Could defo be shorter, I think the Philosophy chapter is most interesting, engaging in some of the ways that I think about Kant, but also perhaps being a bit toooo generous to him? There's an interview with her that I would actually recommend in addition to this (https://www.philomag.de/artikel/gayat...). Not really sure if I am in agreement with her or not, but alas.
November 19, 2014
Although, I don't think that demanding an effort from the reader is necessarily a problem in itself, I had a hard time to get through this book. Knowing that it is not the first text from Spivak I've read, and that I have a background knowledge in postcolonial studies, Hegel, Foucault and Derrida, I did understand her references. What I missed in this book and what made me read and reread and reread the text is the clear formulation of where we were going, why, why the specific examples and not others. To a lot of questions, I still don't have answers form the text.
It is also regrettable that a professor doesn't pay attention to clearly link paragraphs, explain her decisions and not jump from one piece of thought to another. I'm maybe being harsh. I do respect Spivak's work, she is a sort of role model for me and her thinking plays and important role in the development of my intellectual frame, but I do think that she explains more clearly and more powerfully in shorter texts than in books where she has the space of writing as a flow.
It is also regrettable that a professor doesn't pay attention to clearly link paragraphs, explain her decisions and not jump from one piece of thought to another. I'm maybe being harsh. I do respect Spivak's work, she is a sort of role model for me and her thinking plays and important role in the development of my intellectual frame, but I do think that she explains more clearly and more powerfully in shorter texts than in books where she has the space of writing as a flow.
May 31, 2017
Spivak is hella cool.
Notes from thesis:
Deconstructing how the structures of class and privilege impose differences sheds light into how agency, place, and voice get played out in those circles (Spivak, 1993).
The subaltern woman, who is on the margin, and who lacks independent access to the center, finds herself “caught between patriarchy and imperialism, subject-constitution and object-formation”; the figure of the woman [thus] disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the ‘third-world woman’ caught between tradition and modernization” (Spivak, 1993, p. 102).
The role of the female critical intellectual in shifting the pedagogy is significant; it is, as previously noted in the words of Spivak (1993), a “circumscribed task which she must not disown with a flourish” (p. 104).
Notes from thesis:
Deconstructing how the structures of class and privilege impose differences sheds light into how agency, place, and voice get played out in those circles (Spivak, 1993).
The subaltern woman, who is on the margin, and who lacks independent access to the center, finds herself “caught between patriarchy and imperialism, subject-constitution and object-formation”; the figure of the woman [thus] disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the ‘third-world woman’ caught between tradition and modernization” (Spivak, 1993, p. 102).
The role of the female critical intellectual in shifting the pedagogy is significant; it is, as previously noted in the words of Spivak (1993), a “circumscribed task which she must not disown with a flourish” (p. 104).
June 10, 2022
A big effort of a book. Not something you’d read for fun. Some great insights if you take the time to deconstruct and unpack everything Spivak says but it’s very vague and difficult language so you can only guess what she means.
March 25, 2008
Hella obtuse...I spent hours trying to decipher for a presentation. but apparently spivak is a superstar, so I guess she's worth deciphering?
October 24, 2018
Sometimes, Spivak just likes linguistic acrobatics though her reasoning is as sharp as a razor' s edge!
March 16, 2025
বই:A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present
লেখক: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
প্রকাশক: Harvard Univ Pr (28 June 1999)
পৃষ্ঠা সংখ্যা: 449 pages
ওজন: 1 kg 50 g
ডাইমেনশন: 15.6 x 2.95 x 23.5 cm
মূল্য: ১৮৯০/-
"There is nothing outside the text." – Jacques Derrida
গায়ত্রী চক্রবর্তী স্পিভাকের ‘A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present’ পাঠ-পরবর্তী প্রতিক্রিয়া রচনার জন্য এটি একটি অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ উক্তি। স্পিভাকের তাত্ত্বিক কাঠামোতে পাঠ, ভাষা এবং সাংস্কৃতিক প্রতিনিধিত্বের যে বহুমাত্রিকতা প্রকাশ পায়, তা দেরিদার ডিকনস্ট্রাকশন তত্ত্বের সাথে গভীরভাবে যুক্ত। তিনি এখানে উপনিবেশোত্তর তাত্ত্বিক বিশ্লেষণের মাধ্যমে পশ্চিমা দার্শনিক কাঠামোর সীমাবদ্ধতা উন্মোচন করেন।
"Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society." – Michel Foucault
স্পিভাক তার এই গ্রন্থে মূলত ক্ষমতা, জ্ঞান ও প্রতিনিধিত্বের অন্তঃস্থিত সংকটের দিকে আলোকপাত করেন। ফুকোর ক্ষমতা ও জ্ঞানের আন্তঃসম্পর্ক তত্ত্ব এখানে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ কারণ স্পিভাক দেখান যে, উপনিবেশবাদ কেবল বাহ্যিক দমননীতি নয়, বরং জ্ঞানের অভ্যন্তরীণ শৃঙ্খলাবদ্ধ কাঠামোর মাধ্যমেও পরিচালিত হয়।
তিনি ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ প্রবন্ধের প্রসঙ্গে ‘subaltern’ বা প্রান্তিক কণ্ঠস্বরের অনুপস্থিতির প্রশ্নটি নতুন করে উত্থাপন করেন।
"The simulacrum is never what hides the truth—it is truth that hides the fact that there is none." – Jean Baudrillard
স্পিভাক বিশেষভাবে ইউরোপীয় দর্শন, সাহিত্য ও নৃতত্ত্বের সমালোচনা করেছেন, যেখানে প্রাচ্যের চিত্রায়ণ এক ধরনের সিমুলাক্রা বা বিকৃত প্রতিচ্ছবি হিসেবে গড়ে উঠেছে। বোদরিয়ার-এর সিমুলাক্রা তত্ত্ব অনুসারে, উপনিবেশিত দেশগুলির প্রকৃত ইতিহাস বহুস্তরীয় পশ্চিমা নির্মাণ দ্বারা প্রতিস্থাপিত হয়েছে।
স্পিভাক এই নির্মাণকে চিহ্নিত করে দেখানোর চেষ্টা করেছেন যে কীভাবে প্রাচ্যের কণ্ঠস্বরকে ক্রমাগত নীরব করে দেওয়া হয়েছে।
"The subject is not a pre-given entity, but something that is constituted through discourse." – Judith Butler
নারীবাদ ও পোস্ট-কলোনিয়াল তত্ত্বের মধ্যকার যোগসূত্র স্পিভাক অত্যন্ত সূক্ষ্মভাবে বিশ্লেষণ করেছেন। তিনি ‘সাবলটার্ন’ নারীর প্রসঙ্গ টেনে দেখিয়েছেন যে নারীর অবস্থান শুধুমাত্র পিতৃতান্ত্রিক কাঠামোতেই সীমাবদ্ধ নয়, বরং তা সাম্রাজ্যবাদী এবং উত্তর-সাম্রাজ্যবাদী নির্মাণেও গভীরভাবে প্রভাবিত।
বাটলারের পারফরমেটিভ সাবজেক্ট তত্ত্বের আলোকে দেখা যায়, স্পিভাক দেখানোর চেষ্টা করেন যে নারীর পরিচিতি ও প্রতিনিধিত্ব একটি সামাজিক-রাজনৈতিক প্রক্রিয়ার মধ্য দিয়ে নির্মিত হয়।
"Philosophy is not suited for the masses, what they need is a doctrine and the surety of an authority." – Gilles Deleuze
দ্যল্যুজ ও গাত্তারির ‘Rhizome’ তত্ত্বের মতো, স্পিভাকের বিশ্লেষণ কোনো একক কেন্দ্রে আবদ্ধ নয়। তিনি দেখান যে, পোস্টকলোনিয়াল সমাজগুলি উপনিবেশের উত্তরাধিকারে গঠিত হলেও তাদের স্বকীয়তা বহুমাত্রিক ও বিচিত্র। তার তত্ত্বের বিশ্লেষণ কোনো সরলরৈখিক বর্ণনায় সীমাবদ্ধ নয়; বরং তিনি এক জটিল, স্তরিত ও বিপরীতমুখী ধারা হিসেবে উপস্থাপন করেন।
পরিশেষে এটাই বলার যে স্পিভাকের ‘A Critique of Postcolonial Reason’ একটি চ্যালেঞ্জিং, কিন্তু অত্যন্ত তাৎপর্যপূর্ণ গ্রন্থ, যা দার্শনিক, ঐতিহাসিক ও রাজনৈতিক বিশ্লেষণের এক অনন্য সংমিশ্রণ। এটি শুধুমাত্র উপনিবেশোত্তর গবেষণার ক্ষেত্রেই নয়, বরং বর্তমান বিশ্বব্যবস্থার ভেতর ক্ষমতার কাঠামো ও প্রতিনিধিত্বের সংকট বোঝার জন্যও অপরিহার্য পাঠ।
তার দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি পোস্ট-স্ট্রাকচারালিজম এবং পোস্ট-কলোনিয়াল তত্ত্বের জটিল আন্তঃসম্পর্কের সন্ধান দেয়, যা আজকের বিশ্বরাজনীতিতে প্রবলভাবে প্রাসঙ্গিক।
লেখক: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
প্রকাশক: Harvard Univ Pr (28 June 1999)
পৃষ্ঠা সংখ্যা: 449 pages
ওজন: 1 kg 50 g
ডাইমেনশন: 15.6 x 2.95 x 23.5 cm
মূল্য: ১৮৯০/-
"There is nothing outside the text." – Jacques Derrida
গায়ত্রী চক্রবর্তী স্পিভাকের ‘A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present’ পাঠ-পরবর্তী প্রতিক্রিয়া রচনার জন্য এটি একটি অত্যন্ত গুরুত্বপূর্ণ উক্তি। স্পিভাকের তাত্ত্বিক কাঠামোতে পাঠ, ভাষা এবং সাংস্কৃতিক প্রতিনিধিত্বের যে বহুমাত্রিকতা প্রকাশ পায়, তা দেরিদার ডিকনস্ট্রাকশন তত্ত্বের সাথে গভীরভাবে যুক্ত। তিনি এখানে উপনিবেশোত্তর তাত্ত্বিক বিশ্লেষণের মাধ্যমে পশ্চিমা দার্শনিক কাঠামোর সীমাবদ্ধতা উন্মোচন করেন।
"Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society." – Michel Foucault
স্পিভাক তার এই গ্রন্থে মূলত ক্ষমতা, জ্ঞান ও প্রতিনিধিত্বের অন্তঃস্থিত সংকটের দিকে আলোকপাত করেন। ফুকোর ক্ষমতা ও জ্ঞানের আন্তঃসম্পর্ক তত্ত্ব এখানে গুরুত্বপূর্ণ কারণ স্পিভাক দেখান যে, উপনিবেশবাদ কেবল বাহ্যিক দমননীতি নয়, বরং জ্ঞানের অভ্যন্তরীণ শৃঙ্খলাবদ্ধ কাঠামোর মাধ্যমেও পরিচালিত হয়।
তিনি ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ প্রবন্ধের প্রসঙ্গে ‘subaltern’ বা প্রান্তিক কণ্ঠস্বরের অনুপস্থিতির প্রশ্নটি নতুন করে উত্থাপন করেন।
"The simulacrum is never what hides the truth—it is truth that hides the fact that there is none." – Jean Baudrillard
স্পিভাক বিশেষভাবে ইউরোপীয় দর্শন, সাহিত্য ও নৃতত্ত্বের সমালোচনা করেছেন, যেখানে প্রাচ্যের চিত্রায়ণ এক ধরনের সিমুলাক্রা বা বিকৃত প্রতিচ্ছবি হিসেবে গড়ে উঠেছে। বোদরিয়ার-এর সিমুলাক্রা তত্ত্ব অনুসারে, উপনিবেশিত দেশগুলির প্রকৃত ইতিহাস বহুস্তরীয় পশ্চিমা নির্মাণ দ্বারা প্রতিস্থাপিত হয়েছে।
স্পিভাক এই নির্মাণকে চিহ্নিত করে দেখানোর চেষ্টা করেছেন যে কীভাবে প্রাচ্যের কণ্ঠস্বরকে ক্রমাগত নীরব করে দেওয়া হয়েছে।
"The subject is not a pre-given entity, but something that is constituted through discourse." – Judith Butler
নারীবাদ ও পোস্ট-কলোনিয়াল তত্ত্বের মধ্যকার যোগসূত্র স্পিভাক অত্যন্ত সূক্ষ্মভাবে বিশ্লেষণ করেছেন। তিনি ‘সাবলটার্ন’ নারীর প্রসঙ্গ টেনে দেখিয়েছেন যে নারীর অবস্থান শুধুমাত্র পিতৃতান্ত্রিক কাঠামোতেই সীমাবদ্ধ নয়, বরং তা সাম্রাজ্যবাদী এবং উত্তর-সাম্রাজ্যবাদী নির্মাণেও গভীরভাবে প্রভাবিত।
বাটলারের পারফরমেটিভ সাবজেক্ট তত্ত্বের আলোকে দেখা যায়, স্পিভাক দেখানোর চেষ্টা করেন যে নারীর পরিচিতি ও প্রতিনিধিত্ব একটি সামাজিক-রাজনৈতিক প্রক্রিয়ার মধ্য দিয়ে নির্মিত হয়।
"Philosophy is not suited for the masses, what they need is a doctrine and the surety of an authority." – Gilles Deleuze
দ্যল্যুজ ও গাত্তারির ‘Rhizome’ তত্ত্বের মতো, স্পিভাকের বিশ্লেষণ কোনো একক কেন্দ্রে আবদ্ধ নয়। তিনি দেখান যে, পোস্টকলোনিয়াল সমাজগুলি উপনিবেশের উত্তরাধিকারে গঠিত হলেও তাদের স্বকীয়তা বহুমাত্রিক ও বিচিত্র। তার তত্ত্বের বিশ্লেষণ কোনো সরলরৈখিক বর্ণনায় সীমাবদ্ধ নয়; বরং তিনি এক জটিল, স্তরিত ও বিপরীতমুখী ধারা হিসেবে উপস্থাপন করেন।
পরিশেষে এটাই বলার যে স্পিভাকের ‘A Critique of Postcolonial Reason’ একটি চ্যালেঞ্জিং, কিন্তু অত্যন্ত তাৎপর্যপূর্ণ গ্রন্থ, যা দার্শনিক, ঐতিহাসিক ও রাজনৈতিক বিশ্লেষণের এক অনন্য সংমিশ্রণ। এটি শুধুমাত্র উপনিবেশোত্তর গবেষণার ক্ষেত্রেই নয়, বরং বর্তমান বিশ্বব্যবস্থার ভেতর ক্ষমতার কাঠামো ও প্রতিনিধিত্বের সংকট বোঝার জন্যও অপরিহার্য পাঠ।
তার দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি পোস্ট-স্ট্রাকচারালিজম এবং পোস্ট-কলোনিয়াল তত্ত্বের জটিল আন্তঃসম্পর্কের সন্ধান দেয়, যা আজকের বিশ্বরাজনীতিতে প্রবলভাবে প্রাসঙ্গিক।
Read
November 18, 2025This book is insufferable, her writing cryptic, her reasoning obscure, her footnotes winding and long and all over the place, her reliance and admiration of Derrida enough to make you hate him, her politics slipping from hard-core Hegelian Marxist historical materialism to human-rights-lite experiential feel-bad stories about those on the receiving end of imperialism and its colonial sidekick extremely easily, her organization wild and apparently random. I did get into her stride for a while, but it took some doing.
Let's be real: no one reads this book, they just read one essay ("Can the Subaltern Speak?") and be done with it. Me? Of course not, I have to read the damn book.
That said, she is clearly doing something here, she might even be being insufferable on purpose to make you uncomfortable or to make you think or to be challenging, intellectually. Spivak is no fool and her control of a truly astounding array of sources and languages is stunning. I'll also concede that I liked how she pulls absolutely no punches with mainstream feminism and its savior (with the accompanying opposite of "victim") ideology, especially when its the handmaiden of imperial incursions (her famous, from the essay and elaborated on in the book, phrase of "white women saving brown women from brown men"), and her idea of the "benevolent" metropole I find extremely suggestive. She's also not throwing her lot in with any of the standard "leftists" either: "The ventriloquism of the speaking subaltern is the left intellectual's stock-in-trade" (p. 255, 1999 edition, Harvard University Press). Well, tell me what you really think, Gayatri, jeez.
She doesn't want to be a postmodern and is wiggling around all the time (and citing Marx all the time) to not get pigeonholed but that very wiggling is what makes her so postmodern. The 90s were a terribly trying moment theoretically, which I chalk up to the fall of the Soviet Union and our dreams of another material world being possible. We were stuck with this capitalist colonial hellhole and no way out apparently and what we got were a bunch of very well read and trained intellectuals doing acrobatic feats to find another thing to do besides communist revolution. Like analyzing literature for 100 pages and then culture for another 100 (well, riffing on Jameson's Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of, much more readable and its dense as all hell, for 100 pages) and then philosophy for another 100. Also history but since postmodernism did away with history as history collapsed all around us (end of, etc.), her chapter on history isn't all that historical. I'm not sure what happened there, really.
All told, I'm proud of myself for finishing it. And I'm so glad we're on the other side of the 90s. My goodness.
Let's be real: no one reads this book, they just read one essay ("Can the Subaltern Speak?") and be done with it. Me? Of course not, I have to read the damn book.
That said, she is clearly doing something here, she might even be being insufferable on purpose to make you uncomfortable or to make you think or to be challenging, intellectually. Spivak is no fool and her control of a truly astounding array of sources and languages is stunning. I'll also concede that I liked how she pulls absolutely no punches with mainstream feminism and its savior (with the accompanying opposite of "victim") ideology, especially when its the handmaiden of imperial incursions (her famous, from the essay and elaborated on in the book, phrase of "white women saving brown women from brown men"), and her idea of the "benevolent" metropole I find extremely suggestive. She's also not throwing her lot in with any of the standard "leftists" either: "The ventriloquism of the speaking subaltern is the left intellectual's stock-in-trade" (p. 255, 1999 edition, Harvard University Press). Well, tell me what you really think, Gayatri, jeez.
She doesn't want to be a postmodern and is wiggling around all the time (and citing Marx all the time) to not get pigeonholed but that very wiggling is what makes her so postmodern. The 90s were a terribly trying moment theoretically, which I chalk up to the fall of the Soviet Union and our dreams of another material world being possible. We were stuck with this capitalist colonial hellhole and no way out apparently and what we got were a bunch of very well read and trained intellectuals doing acrobatic feats to find another thing to do besides communist revolution. Like analyzing literature for 100 pages and then culture for another 100 (well, riffing on Jameson's Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of, much more readable and its dense as all hell, for 100 pages) and then philosophy for another 100. Also history but since postmodernism did away with history as history collapsed all around us (end of, etc.), her chapter on history isn't all that historical. I'm not sure what happened there, really.
All told, I'm proud of myself for finishing it. And I'm so glad we're on the other side of the 90s. My goodness.
October 25, 2021
"Can the Subaltern Speak?"
Want to read
January 26, 2024ملاحظة لي: لم اقرا الكتاب بعد - صديق لادوارد سعيد - مفكر وناقد لما بعد الكولونيالية
April 28, 2008
Here's the truth, though--like most academic books, I've skimmed this one more than really *read* it. Still, "Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism" stands as one of the all-time great readings of Jane Eyre--one of those essays that makes it impossible for you to look back at a text in the same way as before.
Read
January 28, 2012Partially read for school. It doesn't feel quite right adding it, as I wasn't able to give even the very modest part I read the kind of attention and multiple reading that it would take to feel like I was really getting it, but I suppose I did read it.
Read
August 29, 2025I think there are a lot of good, insightful points being made, and it's interesting how she weaves feminism into post-colonialism, but holy shit, her writing is so technical and complex and almosssttttt pretentious that it's really hard to read and grasp
August 8, 2008
seriously, what kind of book review website limits to 10,000 characters?
Read
May 2, 2016Trippy.
It makes you look at History in ways you never considered before.
And the name of the author is swell: Gaiatrispivak
It makes you look at History in ways you never considered before.
And the name of the author is swell: Gaiatrispivak
Read
October 21, 2016being a woman does not mean being weak
Read
November 26, 2017Don't get me wrong, this book was really good, it just takes a really long time, because it's good. I think one of the many things it is doing is providing a necessarily critique and supplement to Marx, which needs to be emphasized in a number of ways if we are going to realize the vision or whatever. Plus its important in its own right as a critique of colonialism and post-colonialism.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews