2009年6月24日 星期三

walking creatures.

Near midnight, old man walks on the sidewalk back from my house.

Early morning, Marshall the cat walks to me.
Marshall walking

On my way to office, old woman walks across the street and looks at me with unhappy face.

Almost 9 a.m. office lady on her way.

Old couples( I guess) walk, young lovers sit.

11 p.m., a window shopping girl.

Old friendship never die.

Walking for good or evil? I'm not sure.
Protester I

An old poor vendor walks for survived.

Walking seriously.

The End.

2009年6月16日 星期二

Can the Subaltern Speak?

在Spivak的著名的文章 "Can the Subaltern speak?"中,她認為一定程度上,西方的論述再現著第三世界的時候,這些知識產物一定程度上都跟西方的對於第三世界的政治經濟興趣有著密切的關係,弦外之音是知識和政治經濟基本上是有共謀關係的。

這篇文章的結構基本上簡單的,Spivak先用一些篇幅來說明為什麼她在方法論上就Marx 和Derrida而不願意採用 Foucault 和 Deleuze對於權力對於主體性等等的分析。非常坦白的說,雖然我知道Spivak有詳細的說明原因,不過因為對於這一塊辯論太過於陌生,所以我掌握的不是很好,我只能夠知道的是,她認為這兩位學者雖然對於這件論題做了很多的努力,但是他們的成果當中,暗含了一種她所謂 epistem violence 的危險,因此她認為比較合適用於分析歐洲歷史中權力的問題,而不合適用於後殖民研究之中。因此,她採用Derrida的解構理論,來處理再現的問題。遺憾的是這些我比較不那麼熟悉,因此對於方法論上的掌握,還要在花一段時間才有辦法搞清楚Spivak到底在這裡說了些什麼,又是因為什麼原因決定棄FD兩位,而就DM。

進入Case,在寡婦焚祭的研究當中。Spivak指出,寡婦雖然是這個風俗當中的主角,但是事實上在任何一種官方的、學術的論述當中,她們都只能是沒有聲音的Subaltern。一方面,當英國殖民政府進入時,禁止了這項風俗,並且把這個禁止的「德政」視為是「白種人從棕男人手上救贖棕女人」的文明進程的行當;而即使在英國政府退出了印度,接手執政的印度本土菁英(往往是受了殖民國高等教育的菁英)繼續將禁止這種風俗當作是整體社會進步最好的燈號。換言之,不論是白種人,或者是本土菁英,都是以一種Spivak稱呼為現代性的思考方式來看待寡婦焚祭的議題。在他們的觀點中,寡婦焚祭重要的是,在禁止了這項風俗之後,可以作為某某的象徵,來為某種特定的論述方式服務,至於寡婦本身的聲音,Sorry, that's not the point.



Can the Subaltern Speak?

In her famous essay "Can the Subaltern speak?", Spivak indicates that the representaion of the third-world in Western discourse has several latent principles. And in more radical tone, Spivak announces that some Western intellectual production complicit with Western international economic interests. Therefore, she wants to provide an alternative representative way that different from Western discourse, and try to speak for the subaltern woman. That is her main topic.

Before she open up her main topic. Spivak spends many page to explain that why she choice Marx and Derrida's theory but not Deleuze and Foucault. I am not familiar to French philosophy, so in fact, I can not catch lucidly of her argument. All I know is that she choice Derrida's theory as a base for her own. And also, she doesn't agree to Foucault and Deleuze that these two philosophers claimed that "the oppressed, if given the chance, can speak and know their conditions." In other words, Spivak believes that the oppressed can never has a chance to comprehense the condition they are, because there are something impede them to have chance, which Spivak calls "epistemic violence."

The epistemic violence is a concept that hard to catch if one who are familiar to Foucault and Deleuze. But I think the word means something that can causes a violation results to somepeople, or creates inequity in intellectual level. Therefore, even thought that many disciplines turn their eyes to the third- world, especially those subaltern classes and poverty. Spivak claims that though it is a good phenmomenon, but the latent episteme viloence will cause such disciplines' research cause subaltern woman as mute as ever.

Since, I am weak in current Western philosophy and also poor in my English writing, so let's go straight to her case study-- the self- immolation of widow in someplace India. In this case, Spivak is not "introduce" or "explain" a extoic custom to Western society, but uses this as a case to present that subalter-- the widow women. No matter in the modernity discourse, or the post- colonial discourse can not have their own voice. On the modernity side, the prohibition of the immolation had been represented as "white men save brown women from brwon women", in another side, the post-colonial discourse represents such custom as "The women wanted to die."

Spivak indicates that both rehetoric do not provide any space for those widow. We can not find out their real thought from the document or the discourse. Those widow, deprived of their voice by scholar, become subject of discourse. And can be distorted by these opposing sides.

Spivak beleives that those "untold" are those most important things. And in my viewpoint, Spivak want to find out a kind of voice that is pristine, pure and undistorted by any discourse. The vocie must be straight from subaltern women. In other words, that is a representative problem for her. how to nuturalize intellectual represent of subaltern is her main point, but I just wonder that what is different between what she disdain and whate she do? If we all agree that purily objectivity is a chimera when we need to do any representation?