Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Representation: reading-otherwise
Mark Sanders
To cite this article: Mark Sanders (2002) Representation: reading-otherwise, Interventions, 4:2,
198-204, DOI: 10.1080/13698010220144216
Mark Sanders
Brandeis University
Things are, I would propose, altered when ‘Can the subaltern speak?’ is
reframed and revised in A Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Intensifying
allusions via the vocabulary of tropology and persuasion to Paul de Man’s
later writings, what is understood (the essay as a performance has always
seemed to exceed this understanding) in the earlier version as exposure, and
a questioning of interested representation, is rewritten as ‘permanent para-
basis’. A majestic footnote in the chapter on ‘Literature’ hints at this
transformative translation: distance (between signier and signied) is turned
into persistent disruption, as Spivak:
1 I attempt to do so It is impossible here to go into the critical intimacy of Spivak with Allegories
in ‘Postcolonial of Reading and other texts of de Man that yields this formulation.1 It must
reading’ (Sanders sufce to note that, apart from his phrasing of allegory (or speaking-other-
1999).
wise) in terms of irony as parabasis (in dramatic terms, aus der Rolle fallen)
(de Man 1979: 300–1), de Man sets out allegory of reading as, among other
textual predicaments, the disruption of performative and constative (or cog-
nitive, as he tends to call it). Here, as in other instances, Spivak’s use of de
Man is transformative: ethicity as rhetorical predicament (de Man 1979: 206)
turns into rhetoricity as an engagement of the ethical. Though not equival-
ent, the distinction and interference between rhetoric as persuasion and as
tropology appears to belong to the same series. So too does the complicity of
portraiture and proxy in representation as darstellen (constative) and
vertreten (performative). We thus see, in A Critique of Postcolonial Reason,
a signicant development of strategy vis-à-vis representation. With parabasis,
it is no longer merely understood as exposure, but also performed as
disruption.
The implications of this move are revealed even more profoundly when this
disruptive ‘permanent parabasis’ is set out in the appendix to A Critique of
Postcolonial Reason as the ‘setting to work of deconstruction’, the ‘setting-
to-work of deconstruction without reserve’ (Spivak 1999: 430). Readers of
the appendix are in a position to reread the earlier exposition on represen-
tation in Marx; inscribing tragedy as farce, The Eighteenth Brumaire oper-
ates a parabasis, standing aside from parliamentary paternalism, and stands
forth as a setting to work of deconstruction. The appendix makes plain how
high the stakes are when the deconstruction that is set to work exceeds theor-
etical formalization and the theoretical practice of the academy. Described in
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N 201
Mark Sa nders
From this arises a question: if Spivak’s book is ‘Capital’ for implied readers
in middle management, corporate or academic, has it given up the project for
socialism from below? On the one hand, by dening its implied reader the
way it does, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason takes up the more limited
project of encouraging the upwardly mobile metropolitan migrant to ‘join’ in
solidarity with global movements. This is, however, only part of the picture.
First of all, there is localized ‘counterglobalist or alternative-development
activism’, which operates the parabasis to ‘the logic of global development’
(Spivak 1999: 429). But there is another dimension. If the book is declaredly
written for the metropolitan migrant, it also sets out another ‘literacy,’ which
is the essential counterpart to that feasible in the metropole, and in which the
New Immigrant meets a limit:
The gure of the New Immigrant has a radical limit: those who have stayed in place
for more than thirty thousand years. We need not value the limit for itself, but we
must take it into account. Is there an alternative vision of the human here? The
tempo of learning to learn from this immensely slow temporizing will not only take
us clear out of diasporas, but will also yield no answers or conclusions readily. Let
5 As several readers
have noted (Sanders this stand as the name of the other of the question of diaspora. That question, so
1999; Baucom 2000; taken for granted these days as the historically necessary ground of resistance,
Al-Kassim 2002;
marks the forgetting of this name. Friday? (Spivak 1999: 402)
Cornell 2002),
insisting upon the
Native Informant as Friday, the character from Coetzee’s novel Foe, is one gure of the limit, a
a limit is one of the gure in the margin. Friday has no tongue, and does not speak. Although the
central gestures of A
Critique of
limit marked by such non-speaking need not be valued for itself,5 it is, as I
Postcolonial Reason. suggest in my last question, one version of the alterity which makes Marxism,
It is crucial also to in Spivak’s rewriting, a setting to work of deconstruction.
note, though, that,
It lies beyond the scope of this essay to set out the way in which the tex-
in cultural politics
and in politics more tuality of colonialism and postcoloniality, specically, produce the impossible
generally, when perspective/gure of the Native Informant who operates the parabasis (Spivak
representation (as 1999: 37) necessary for a counter-inscription.6 What is striking, however,
Darstellung and as
Vertretung) is especially as one reads the appendix and its account of the development of
contested, this limit Derrida’s thinking from différance and ‘ “guarding the question” ’ to a ‘ “call
is transgressed, even to the wholly other” ’ (Spivak 1999: 425), is how A Critique of Postcolonial
if it is only through
a ‘responsible and
Reason insists upon a place for alterity, for responsibility in Marxism (as the
minimal setting to work of deconstruction): ‘the splitting off of socialism from
identitarianism’ capitalism is perceived as grounded in the prior economy between self-
(Spivak 1999:
preservation and the call of the other’ (Spivak 1999: 430). To, once again,
156n).
impossibly, distil a reading into a single question: does the reframing work
6 See my done by A Critique of Postcolonial Reason suggest that a Marxist or socialist
‘Postcolonial ethics is possible, if the system is persistently exceeded, and/or disrupted, by
reading’ (Sanders
1999) for a more the projection (Darstellung) of the gure of the other which, being prior to
detailed account. the self, is also the gure for whom one is always already a proxy
interventions – 4:2 204
R e f e re n c e s
Al-Kassim, Dina (2002) ‘The face of foreclosure’, Sanders, Mark (1999) ‘Postcolonial reading’,
Interventions 4(2). Postmodern Culture 10(1); on-line: <http: //muse.
Baucom, Ian (2000) ‘Cryptic, withheld, singular’, jhu.edu/journals/pmc/v010/10.1.r_sanders.html>.
Nepantla 1(2): 413–29. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) ‘Can the
Cornell, Drucilla (2002) ‘Feminist futures: subaltern speak?’, in Cary Nelson and Lawrence
transnationalism, the sublime and the community Grossberg (eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of
of ought to be’. Culture, London: Macmillan, pp. 271–313.
De Man, Paul (1979) Allegories of Reading: Figural —— (1993) Outside in the Teaching Machine, New
Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and York: Routledge.
Proust, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. —— (1996) The Spivak Reader: Selected Works of
Foucault, Michel (1977) Language, Counter-Memory, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, eds Donna Landry
Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. and Gerald MacLean, New York: Routledge.
Donald F. Bouchard, trans. Donald F. Bouchard —— (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason:
and Sherry Simon, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Toward a History of the Vanishing Present,
Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.