Teilw. zugl.: Frankfurt (Main), Univ., Diss., 2007

The main objective of this essay is to find out and show as to whether the respective pedagogies of Paolo Freire and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak are free from the authoritarian and oppressive tendencies they both expressively seek to oppose. More specifically, the investigation presented in this text is focused on the relation between theory and method in Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Spivak’s “Righting Wrongs – 2002: Accessing Democracy among the Aboriginals.” The analysis of this relation, and these two texts, moreover, is informed by three interconnected research questions, asking (1) how Freire and Spivak prompt us to learn from the learner, (2) if Freire and Spivak manage to circumvent the danger of transference, of imposing the teacher’s agenda on the student, and (3) how the methodological leap (from theory to practice) of Freire and Spivak fit into their respective theorizing in a broader sense. As the inquiries above suggest, this essay pays close attention to the fact that Freire and Spivak both—albeit to different degrees—try to render their theories practicable, while still avoiding undemocratic methods that fail to take into account the voice and the reality of the student. By way of a close reading of some of Freire’s and Spivak’s central pedagogical concepts, a thorough scrutiny of the concrete methodological examples provided by the same scholars, and an analysis of Freire’s dialectical reasoning and Spivak’s Marxist/deconstructionist theorizing, this thesis aims to demonstrate that neither of these two theorists are completely successful in realizing their educational projects. In the case of Freire, this is primarily due to a methodological saving clause that ultimately functions so as to mute students whose voices are not resonant with that of the pedagogue, and in Spivak’s case, the failure finds its explanation mainly in the author’s deconstructionist tendency to resist the practice of offering concrete, overall solutions to complicated problems.

In this thesis, I use a close reading of the silent films of Charlie Chaplin to examine a question of listening posed by Jean-Luc Nancy, “Is listening something of which philosophy is capable” (Nancy 2007:1)? Drawing on the work of Nancy, Jacques Derrida and Gayatri Spivak, I consider a claim that philosophy has failed to address the topic of listening because a logocentric tradition claims speech as primary. In response to Derrida’s deconstruction of logocentrism, Nancy complicates the problem of listening by distinguishing between <em>l’e´coute</em> and <em>l’entente</em>. <em>L’e´coute </em>is an attending to and answering the demand of the other and <em>l’entente</em> is an understanding directed inward toward a subject. Nancy could deconstruct an undervalued position of <em>l’e´coute</em>, making listening essential to speech. I argue, Nancy rather asks what kind of listening philosophy is capable of. To examine this question, I focus on the peculiarly dialogical figure derived from Chaplin that communicates meaning without using speech. This discussion illustrates how Chaplin, in the role of a silent figure, listens to himself (<em>il s’e´coute</em>) as other. Chaplin’s listening is Nancean resonance, a movement in which a subject refers back to itself as another subject, in constant motion of spatial and temporal non-presence. For Nancy, listening is a self’s relationship to itself, but without immediate self-presence. Moving in resonance, Chaplin makes the subject as other as he refers back to himself as other. I argue that Chaplin, through silent dialogue with himself by way of the other, makes his listening listened to. Chaplin refused to make his character speak because he believed speech would change the way in which his work would be listened to. In this way, Chaplin makes people laugh by making himself understood (<em>se fait entendre</em>) as he makes himself listened to (<em>se fait e´couter</em>). In answer to Nancy’s question, I conclude philosophy is capable of meeting the demand of listening as both <em>l’entente</em> and <em>l’e´coute</em> when it listens as Chaplin listens.

Student Number : 9803321X - MA Dissertation - School of Literature and Language Studies - Faculty of Humanities / The primary aim of this dissertation is to trace the ways in which Yvonne Vera’s final two novels, Butterfly Burning and The Stone Virgins, provide a discursive space for the enunciation of subaltern histories, which have been silenced in dominant socio-political discourse. I argue that it is through the deployment of ‘poetic language’ that Vera’s prose is able to negotiate the voicing of these suppressed narratives. In exploring these questions, I endeavour to locate Vera’s texts within the theoretical debates in postcolonial scholarship which question the ethical limitations of representing oppressed subjects in the Third World, as articulated by Gayatri Spivak, in particular. Following Spivak’s claim that subalternity is effaced in hegemonic discourse, I focus on the ways in which Vera’s inventive prose works to bring the figure of the subaltern back into signification. In order to elucidate how this dynamic operates in both novels, I employ Julia Kristeva’s psycholinguistic theory of ‘poetic language’. I argue that Kristeva’s understanding of literary practice as a transgressive modality, which is able to unsettle the silencing mechanisms of dominant monologic discourse, critically illuminates the subversive value of Vera’s fictional style for marginalised subaltern narratives.

<p>The following inquiry begins with one simple question: who is the margin? In other words, what is the referent of the term margin? Is it possible for language to capture connotations of an intended and supposed reality beyond its own limits? My supposition is that margin is a valuable concept to critical studies of the hegemonic order and dominant culture in various contexts. It is therefore necessary to expose the term itself to a critical analysis by attempting to trace its position in different discourses. The intention is to illustrate that the term margin is not merely an abstraction, confined within the framework of intricate theoretical rhetoric.</p><p>In a deconstructive analysis of Gender Trouble by Judith Butler and Can the Subaltern Speak? by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, based on the work of Jacques Derrida, I study the significance of the term margin and explore how the use or non-use of concrete examples affects the reception of both the term margin and ultimately the text as a whole.</p><p>The study of these two texts reveals that some of the very same critique raised by Butler and Spivak is itself applicable to the authors’ own theory production. Consequently, the authority of Butler and Spivak is put to the test through deconstructive analysis by disclosing the discrepancies between concrete examples, the authors’ philosophical stance as well as statements and positions found in other examples of their intellectual work.</p>

The following inquiry begins with one simple question: who is the margin? In other words, what is the referent of the term margin? Is it possible for language to capture connotations of an intended and supposed reality beyond its own limits? My supposition is that margin is a valuable concept to critical studies of the hegemonic order and dominant culture in various contexts. It is therefore necessary to expose the term itself to a critical analysis by attempting to trace its position in different discourses. The intention is to illustrate that the term margin is not merely an abstraction, confined within the framework of intricate theoretical rhetoric. In a deconstructive analysis of Gender Trouble by Judith Butler and Can the Subaltern Speak? by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, based on the work of Jacques Derrida, I study the significance of the term margin and explore how the use or non-use of concrete examples affects the reception of both the term margin and ultimately the text as a whole. The study of these two texts reveals that some of the very same critique raised by Butler and Spivak is itself applicable to the authors’ own theory production. Consequently, the authority of Butler and Spivak is put to the test through deconstructive analysis by disclosing the discrepancies between concrete examples, the authors’ philosophical stance as well as statements and positions found in other examples of their intellectual work.

This dissertation analyses a number of key themes in the work of postcolonial theorist and literary critic Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, and uses her ideas to argue for the usefulness of both deconstructive and postmodern thought in a postcolonial context generally, and in South Africa in particular. The early part of the thesis presents a brief overview of Spivak's work (Chapter 1) and discusses its relationship with Derridean deconstruction and what I have called "progressive postmodern thought". Chapter 2 explores in detail Spivak's use of theoretical concepts adapted from, or closely related to, deconstruction. Perhaps the most important of these is catachresis - the idea that all naming is in a sense false, and the words we use to conceptualise the world must be seen as "inadequate, yet necessary". The thesis looks at how Spivak foregrounds the methodological consequences of this insight in her own practice of constantly revisiting and rethinking her own conclusions, and also at the political consequences of recognising specific terms like "nation", "identity" or "woman" as catachrestic. Closely related to this area of Spivak's work are her idea of "strategic essentialism" and her adaptation of Derrida's concept of the pharmakon -- that which is simultaneously poison and medicine. Chapter 3 relates Spivak's work to three key areas of postmodern thought: alterity, and the ethics of the relationship between self and other; Lyotard's notions of the differand and the "unpresentable"; and aporia, or the ethical and political consequences of undecidability. I argue here that all of these emphases are potentially very useful in postcolonial studies, particularly in relation to the predicament - of the gendered subaltern, and that they help to define a progressive postmodern politics. The remainder of the dissertation discusses individual essays at greater length. Chapter 4 focuses in the main on "Can the Subaltern Speak?" (1988) and Spivak's arguments concerning the nature of subalternity and the politics of representation. Chapter 5 examines Spivak's engagement with French Feminism and her feminist critiques of mainstream deconstruction, arguing that Spivak's use of deconstruction undermines the opposition between linguistic and material forms of oppression and hence between theory and practice. Chapter 6 focuses on Spivak's reading of literary texts and raises issues concerning, inter alia, the production of the first world self at the expense of the third world other; the limits of both metropolitan theories and narratives of national liberation, democracy and development in relation to the experience of the gendered subaltern; reading the text of the subaltern body; the (impossible but necessary) ethical relationship between first world feminist and the subaltern in neocolonial space; rights and responsibility; the need to respect subaltern selfhood; and the possibility of what Spivak calls "learning from below". Finally, I look at the relevance of Spivak's thought to three areas of South African political and academic life: conflicts over representation within the local Women's movement; notions of national origin and national identity; and debates over deconstruction and the relationship between the academy and society. / Thesis (Ph.D.)-University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 1998.

<p>The purpose of this paper is to analyse how work by Swedish artist Ylva Ogland (born in 1974) function as an eye-opener for the social marginalisation of people identified with homosexuality, prostitution and drug addiction. Although highly present in reality, these phenomena were historically, and are still today, hidden from view in public discourse. I have focused on the installations Rapture and Silence and Things Seen, and the still-life painting called Xenia. I argue that these artworks carefully represent the above-mentioned marginalised groups, by way of references to comparable motives in the history of art, from neoclassicism in France, to realism and romanticism.</p>

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how work by Swedish artist Ylva Ogland (born in 1974) function as an eye-opener for the social marginalisation of people identified with homosexuality, prostitution and drug addiction. Although highly present in reality, these phenomena were historically, and are still today, hidden from view in public discourse. I have focused on the installations Rapture and Silence and Things Seen, and the still-life painting called Xenia. I argue that these artworks carefully represent the above-mentioned marginalised groups, by way of references to comparable motives in the history of art, from neoclassicism in France, to realism and romanticism.

With the progress of globalization, it is becoming increasingly evident that there lies within it a Westernizing thrust that forms a part of the European colonial legacy. Postcolonial theorists, exemplified by Homi K. Bhabha, Edward W. Said, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, have, over the last twenty years, produced some of the most influential discourse-analysis of colonialism, and critiques of neocolonialism. Their works, committed to various streams of poststructuralism, nonetheless exhibit some debilitating epistemological problems this thesis demonstrates by recourse to Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard. In conclusion it offers an alternative approach to globalization derived from Kierkegaard's dilemma of first principles in Either/Or, and Wittgenstein's discussion of language games in Philosophical Investigations .