Thanks again for the follow up. Here are few more pointers to continue the conversation. Given the implications of historiography as a compliant modernist truth regime, with writing itself as a discursive techne, and the discursive double bind implied in Spivak's "Can the Subaltern Speak," where would you locate the subaltern's agency? Would performative aspects and material particularities provide the credible deconstructive platform? What does it bode for people in the academy 'writing' about other-ed subalterns?
1 comment:
Thanks again for the follow up. Here are few more pointers to continue the conversation. Given the implications of historiography as a compliant modernist truth regime, with writing itself as a discursive techne, and the discursive double bind implied in Spivak's "Can the Subaltern Speak," where would you locate the subaltern's agency? Would performative aspects and material particularities provide the credible deconstructive platform? What does it bode for people in the academy 'writing' about other-ed subalterns?
Post a Comment