Key points of Spivak's
"Can the Subaltern Speak?"


"My view is that radical practice should attend to this double session of representations rather reintroduce the individual subject through totalizing concepts of power and desire [as Foucault and Deleuze do]" (74).

Section I
I. Following Marx, Spivak distinguishes between
1st constellation Re-presentation (darstelleng ) rhetoric as trope class as a descriptive concept, class in a system  class consciousness
2nd constellation Representation (vertreten) rhetoric as persuasion class as a transformative concept; thru' stubstitution/representative transformation of consciousness
  II. Representation of labor power thus should be theorized/specified as "exploitation as the extraction (production), appropriation and realization of (surplus) value" (74).  This is to pay attention to "the micrological texture of power."

III.  Spivak's critique  of the Foucault-Deleuze  conversation:
". . . the constitutive subject on at least two levels: the Subject of desire and  power  as an irreducible  methodological presupposition; and the self-proximate, if not self-identical, subject of  the oppressed.     Further,   the  intellectuals, who are neither of these S/subjects, become transparent in the relay race,   for they merely report on the  nonrepresentedsubject and  analyze (without analyzing) the workings of (the unnamed Subject  irreducibly presupposed by) power and  desire.  (p. 74)

[here she shifts to her focus of the Third-World Other]
. . . It  is impossible for contemporary French intellectuals to imagine the kind of Power and Desire that would inhabit the unnamed subject of the Other of Europe."

Section II