come into conflict and create drama and blood and life may spring from
that, but they cannot merge except by overlay and separateness of
The theory I read inevitably divides in order to classify and
understand. ‘Us’ and ‘them.’ To argue against. To rise against the
water table. To voice. To shatter silence. To speak. To wrest space.
Begin to see why Marxism as theory will always remain locked in binary
conflict. It may try to be multicultural but will remain pan-national.
For it binds by ties of situational solidarity experienced, not
inherited or happened into. Economics and political affinity are not
the first things one thinks of when asked ‘who are you?’ and they are
not usually the things one dies with, although they may be the ones
that kill the most.
Spivak’s weakness, as far as I can imagine now, is that she still works
within the imperial sexual fracture. As do all postcolonialists.
Perhaps that’s why I hesitate to call myself one.