Argues for postcoloniality as a model for philosophical practice. In this ambitious book, Namita Goswami draws on continental philosophy, postcolonial criticism, critical race theory, and African American and postcolonial feminisms to offer postcoloniality as a model for philosophical practice. Moving among and between texts, traditions, and frameworks, including the work of Gayatri Spivak, Theodor Adorno, Barbara Christian, Paul Gilroy, Neil Lazarus, and Hortense Spillers, among others, she charts a journey that takes us beyond Eurocentrism by understanding postcoloniality as the pursuit (...) of heterogeneity, that is, of a non-antagonistic understanding of difference. Recognizing that philosophy, feminism, and postcolonial theory share a common concern with the concept of heterogeneity, Goswami shows how postcoloniality empowers us to engage more productively the relationships between these disciplines. Subjects That Matter confronts the ways Eurocentrism, an identity politics that considers difference as inherently oppositional, relegates minority traditions to a diagnostic and/or corrective standpoint to prevent their general implications from playing a critical and transformative role in how we understand subjectivity and agency. Through unexpected, often surprising, and thought-provoking analytic connections and continuities, this book’s interdisciplinary approach reveals a postcolonial pluralism that expands philosophical resources, confounds and limits our habitual disciplinary lexicons, and opens up new areas of inquiry. “This is a groundbreaking contribution to a number of distinct but intersecting fields.” — Amy Allen, author of The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. (shrink)

This essay responds to the polyphonic and prismatic reflections stemming from Subjects That Matter: Philosophy, Feminism, and Postcolonial Theory (2019), especially as the connective and creative works included in this forum seek holistic, profoundly interdisciplinary, and transcontinental discussions on intersectionality and philosophical practice. I seek vibrant, productive connections between diverse projects by attempting to engage a few salient aspects of these contributions as they intersect with the book’s overall stated aims, primarily because my interlocutors’s work leads out of the book (...) rather than burrows into it. This is precisely the forum’s aspirational trajectory, for it showcases multiplicity, discontinuity, divergence, plurality, and profusion, not to dubiously claim the mantle of radicalism, but to move toward systemic change through the precarious, difficult, and essentially historical task of building coalitions. My hope remains that through these lovingly orchestrated moments of exegetical exchange, which confound and limit rather than insulate our habitual disciplinary lexicons, we may roil Eurocentric identity politics and its impoverished understanding of difference. (shrink)

Intersectionality, the attempt to bring theories on race, gender, disability and sexuality together, has existed for decades as a theoretical framework. The essays in this volume explore how intersectionality can be applied to modern philosophy, as well as looking at other disciplines.

This essay challenges the reduction of Gayatri Spivak's critique of postcolonial reason to functional and derivative identity politics. Such a reading neutralizes the philosophical nature of Spivak's conceptual contributions. Because Spivak is derided as preaching about subaltern victimhood, this essay discerns what is philosophical about the concept of the subaltern. I focus on Spivak's attempt at a space-clearing gesture that can create the possibility for breaking the frame of Eurocentrism. I argue that for this philosopher of the future, the concept (...) of the subaltern is vital for making history and all its victims real. Rather than reiterating the dialectic of “Western philosopher” and “postcolonial critic,” our philosopher of the future knows how most philosophy begins with the commonplace of sorrow. In postcolonialism, she prays to be haunted by the ghosts of (our) history's victims. In other words, our philosopher of the future learns how we make (our) ghosts—as (this) history happens to us (right now). Because we are serious about philosophy, and not preserving our over-determined parts in The Great Game, this essay reads Spivak's critique of postcolonial reason to show how she prefigures “colonialism to come” in Euro-US epistemological training. (shrink)

Spivak refers to “originary queerness” as a concept she cannot yet theorize. If concepts convey and uphold heterogeneous lived experience, then the paradoxical missing-ness of a corresponding “what...

Paul Gilroy's subtle use of Theodor Adorno in Postcolonial Melancholia misses the opportunity to forge for the postcolonial world a sense of responsibility for the colonial cultures that this postcolonial world helped to create. Gilroy rightly emphasizes the naïveté often associated with attempts to “dwell convivially with difference”. His negatively dialectical reading of the deterministic logics of racial difference brings into view an already present demotic multiculturalism. He neglects, however, how Adorno's conception of negative dialectics can be understood as postcolonial (...) in its understanding of difference. In other words, both Adorno and Gilroy focus on recuperating a conception of non-antagonistic difference, that is, an understanding of difference as heterogeneity. Yet, Gilroy maintains an a priori sense of cultural difference from Adorno in spite of Postcolonial Melancholia's trajectory of positing a negative dialectics of conviviality. This conviviality is the “fragile, emergent substance of vital planetary humanism” that refuses to render postcoloniality synonymous with the maintenance of nation-state boundaries. Thus, Gilroy forfeits the prospect of conducting a radical postcolonial reading of Adorno, which would demonstrate precisely how colonial history provides “an opening onto the multicultural promise of the postcolonial world”. (shrink)

This essay conducts a comparative reading of Gayatri Spivak’s discussion of the Hindu epic Mahabharata and Mahasweta Devi’s story “Draupadi.” While scholars have examined Devi’s tribal protagonist Draupadi in conjunction with the high Hindu goddess Draupadi of the epic, I suggest that the former’s viswarupadarshana should be read in contrast to the role of the Mahabharata’s Hindu God Krishna. This comparison shows the feminist and postcolonial import of Devi’s story, as it demonstrates the continuity of caste-based tribal exploitation from antiquity (...) to globalization. Along with this critique of tribal women’s subalternity in the national imaginary, Devi’s story stages a terrifying singularity that disrupts the sociopolitical logic of gender. Draupadi occupies the position of the subject of knowledge to invert the Indo-Aryan ontograph. By unraveling the “she” that must be perpetually murdered for historicity to take root, Draupadi pours into an encounter between agent and subaltern the affectivity ideologically excised for an illusion to be seen as truth and, hence, as history. (shrink)