Imagining The Impossible
Imagining The Impossible: Spivak’s Goal For Ethical Singularity and Responsibility
Gayatri Charkravorty Spivak writes in the afterword of her translation of Imaginary Maps by Mahasweta Devi about her views on social justice and the ethical responsibility First and Third World nations have to the ecology of an undivided world even if this may be an impossible fantasy. The title of Devi’s novel painfully points to the structuring of history and the complicity of both colonialism and modernity in these constructions. The current maps of the world did not always and already exist prior to colonialism and western expansion but became the reality of the world after European hegemony. Modernity brought prosperity to many, the colonizers and oppressors, but at the cost of human life, histories and civilizations. The indigenous groups, the “Fourth World” as Spivak names them, were marginalized and “othered” in society if not wiped out completely. Instead of fully realized humanity, the indigenous peoples such as the Tribals of India lost all control and rights they had before colonial expansion and modernity. The narratives of the world and the mapping of landmasses cannot be viewed without the acknowledgement of the marginalized nations and excluded members of the world order that have fallen victim to the violence of colonialism.
Spivak offers in her afterword an alternative mode and structure to attain social justice on a global scale and reach an ethical singularity void of power relations. One must acknowledge the precious and precariousness of nature and humanity. The ecological consequences of capitalism on nature have led to devastation of land and displacement of nations who have been forcibly removed from their homelands to make room for the incoming society and civilizations. But Spivak believes nature and humanity should be seen as sacred, though the “sacred” she discusses has no religious connotation. She writes, “In order to mobilize for nonviolence, for example, one relies, however remotely, on building up a conviction of the ‘sacredness’ of human life. ‘Sacred’ here need not have a religious sanction, but simply a sanction that cannot be contained within the principle of reason alone. Nature is no longer sacred in this sense for the civilizations based on the control of Nature” (199). All of humanity, whether deemed subaltern or not, should be seen as sacred members of nature. With this recognition, the shared responsibility for an ecological just world becomes ever the more apparent according to Spivak. Reason alone will not suffice in changing inequalities and devastations on nature and man that continue in the world’s civilizations. If the reason people mobilize in the name of change and ecological improvements is merely for global survival then the self-interests get in the way of fundamental reconstruction. The recognition of the relationship the human community, First, Third, Fourth and otherwise, has to one another and nature offers the only hope for Spivak’s goal of ethical singularity.
An undivided world, one where the maps are seen as imaginary, may be possible only without religious theology as a liberation tool according to Spivak. Power and the control it has over others make theology a harmful system in the mind of individuals. When ethical singularity and a shared recognition in the responsibility humanity has over nature is the goal, then a belief system where ultimate power and change do not belong to humanity but a higher being or deity must be reconsidered. I agree with Spivak’s contention that theology can be counterproductive and dangerous. If humanity can accept the idea that they can control the narrative of the world and that everyone holds influence and responsibility over others regardless of creeds or cultural norms, then, perhaps, an ethical singularity can be reached and reason and obligation will trump ideology.
Grant Gilmore
April 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I chose to write my paper about the Spivak’s afterword because I think she brings up some interesting points in regards to social change and justice that can tie into talks of feminism, particularly when discussing feminism in the Third World. Admittedly, I struggled to understand everything Spivak writes in the afterword so I figured doing an analysis of it might help as well. There’s something about her prose that’s hard to decipher at times. I read that many have described her writing as “opaque” which I think is pretty fitting from what I’ve read of her’s so far, even if it is a little insulting. If memory serves me, she seems to differ from Devi when it comes to using violence as a means of justice or social change that we read in The Author In Conversation portion of the book. I don’t think Spivak sees violence as ever an acceptable option for it hinders any ethical singularity from ever occurring. We must all recognize the relations we have to one another as human beings and the collective responsibility humanity has to nature.
If anyone understood her afterword differently than me or feel i’m off the mark on some of the points don’t hesitate to call me out on it. I rolled the dice on this so we’ll see what happens.
May 12, 2009 at 6:18 am
I am sorry that I overlooked this post, it is very well written and you made sense of Spivak’s afterword. I do feel the same way that societies are bordered with taboos on religion and culture and if these bordered are deemed imaginary than there could possibly be peace.
May 12, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I have to admit, this comment will seem a bit tangential to what you were writing about, but I couldn’t help but re-read your post and think of in terms of Virgina Woolf’s Orlando (and A Room of One’s Own). For Spivak there is this idea of imaginary maps and the notion that maps are a social construct, created by those that are in positions of power. These maps become an integral part of how we perceive the world and we soon forget that they are unnatural (created by people). The differences were created by people… by society.
This is the same idea that Woolf addressed, only she applied it to gender. Society holds a mask of gender over people faces and this affects how we perceive one another. We soon begin to believe that these difference, although created by society, are actually natural. We then find it increasingly difficult to break from our conformity to these gender roles, reinforcing the idea that we were simply born that way and that all men are like X and women are like Y.
In both cases, these social constructs have an extreme impact on people. Maps creates a sense of nationality, unity.. a sense of identity. But it also creates a sense of The Other, and what it means to be “different.” Gender also creates a sense of unity and identity, and also what it means to be of the other sex. However, in both cases it is people in positions of power that have created how we perceive the world/how we believe the world naturally is. This, then, becomes problematic because too often these man-made creations, understood as (and then justified as) natural-creations, are used to benefit some and disadvantage others. For Spivak, the issue was the abuses faced by bonded laborers. For Woolf, it was the inequality for women.
May 17, 2009 at 4:59 am
Spivak’s theory of “ethical singularity” also seems to allude to the problems feminist theorists find in defining “women” as a group, as we saw in Wendy Brown’s essay “The Impossibility of Women’s Studies.” Brown wrote that women hold other identity-based allegiances to other groups based on ethnicity, class, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Causes some may deem as “feminist” may not be other women’s priorities or may not even benefit other women in different situations. Sedgwick referred to a similar conflict in her essay “White Glasses.” Though by strict definitions she may be considered a straight woman, she writes that she finds herself identifying more with the gay male community. It was her illness, one so closely affiliated with femininity that shocked her back into identifying with women. In the essay, she remembers feeling torn between the causes surrounding breast cancer awareness and the AIDS crisis. Such conflicts as these theorists described would suggest that theology is not the only impediment to the universal consciousness that Spivak supports. The idea that we must fight for the betterment of all peoples is a noble ideal, but our conflicting allegiances and priorities that so deeply divide our society (in perhaps irreversible ways) may be an impediment in realizing such a goal.