“How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

“How Do We Write, Now?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, first published in 2008 in the journal PMLA, has become a cornerstone in literature and literary theory, particularly within postcolonial and feminist studies. Spivak’s exploration of the complexities of language, representation, and historical power dynamics has had a profound influence on critical thinking, challenging traditional notions of authorship, subjectivity, and the role of literature in shaping social and political realities.

Summary of “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

1. Global South as Audience in Writing: The article critiques the assumption that academic writing should include the “global South” as part of its audience, questioning the relevance and implications of this inclusion (Spivak, 2018).
2. Identity and Subject Positions in Writing: The author argues against writing that emphasizes identity claims, particularly those that align with dominant classes, races, or genders, suggesting that such claims reinforce existing power structures (Spivak, 2018).
3. Responsibility in Intellectual Work: Spivak emphasizes the need for intellectuals to go beyond tokenization and identity politics, advocating for a broader responsibility that considers the complexities of class and civil society (Spivak, 2018).
4. Critique of the Global South Concept: The term “global South” is criticized as overly simplistic and exclusionary, often ignoring the diverse realities of populations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Spivak, 2018).
5. Challenges in Writing and Communication: The article highlights the difficulties in bridging cultural and linguistic divides in writing, particularly when engaging with subaltern communities who are often marginalized in global discourses (Spivak, 2018).
6. Deconstructing the Notion of a Universal Sender: Spivak discusses how academics construct themselves as senders of knowledge, often failing to adequately address the complexities of global and digital humanities (Spivak, 2018).
7. Language and Power in Development Work: The author calls for a greater emphasis on understanding and using local, unsystematized languages in development work, as these languages hold significant cultural and communicative power (Spivak, 2018).
8. Memory Writing and Responsibility: Spivak proposes the idea of learning to write from memory, drawing on pre-existing oral traditions and practices, to foster a deeper sense of responsibility towards the subaltern (Spivak, 2018).
9. Critique of Development Practices: The article critiques current development practices for their lack of attention to the cultural and linguistic needs of those they aim to help, arguing for a more responsible and imaginative approach (Spivak, 2018).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Term	Definition	Example from the Article
Subaltern Studies	A critical approach that focuses on marginalized groups and their experiences, often challenging dominant narratives.	Spivak’s critique of the “global South” as a monolithic category, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of subaltern experiences.
Postcolonial Theory	A theoretical framework that analyzes the lasting impact of colonialism on societies, cultures, and individuals.	Spivak’s discussion of the “unclaimed North” and its role in perpetuating colonial power dynamics.
Deconstruction	A critical method that challenges binary oppositions and reveals hidden power structures within texts.	Spivak’s deconstruction of the “global” and “South” categories, arguing for a more complex understanding of these terms.
Subject Position	The social and cultural position from which one speaks or writes.	Spivak’s critique of claiming unique subject positions and the importance of resisting tokenization.
Responsibility	A moral obligation to act in a way that acknowledges and responds to the needs of others.	Spivak’s emphasis on “response-ibility” as a way to engage with the subaltern and avoid a purely transactional approach.
Identity Politics	A political approach that focuses on the rights and interests of marginalized groups based on their identities (e.g., race, gender, sexuality).	Spivak’s critique of identity claims and her preference for a more nuanced understanding of social and political realities.
Digital Humanities	A field of study that uses digital technologies to analyze and interpret cultural materials.	Spivak’s discussion of the potential of digital tools to connect with subaltern communities and promote social justice.
Memory Writing	A form of writing that emphasizes the role of memory in shaping identity and understanding.	Spivak’s exploration of unsystematized first languages and their connection to memory and community.
Lingua Franca	A language that is used as a common means of communication between people who speak different languages.	Spivak’s discussion of the limitations of lingua francas like Kiswahili and IsiZulu in reaching subaltern communities.

Contribution of “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Literary Work	Critique Through “How Do We Write, Now?”
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad	Spivak might critique Conrad’s portrayal of Africa and its people as reinforcing colonial stereotypes, pointing out the work’s failure to engage with the complexities of the “global South” and its tendency to generalize the non-Western world, thereby ignoring the diversity within Africa.
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	Spivak could appreciate Achebe’s challenge to Western narratives about Africa but might also critique any essentialist notions of African identity that could emerge, suggesting that even postcolonial works must be careful not to generalize or tokenize cultural identities.
The Tempest by William Shakespeare	Spivak might analyze the depiction of Caliban as a subaltern figure, critiquing how the play reinforces the power dynamics of colonialism. She could argue that the text reflects the Eurocentric perspectives that create a “global South” as a monolithic entity, erasing local complexities.
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Spivak might critique any reading of Beloved that reduces it to a mere representation of African American identity. She could emphasize the need to recognize the novel’s deeper engagement with memory and history, rather than simplifying it as a token of the “global South” experience.

Criticism Against “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

1. Overemphasis on Academic Elitism: Critics might argue that Spivak’s discussion remains too rooted in academic jargon and elitist perspectives, potentially alienating readers outside the academic circle.
2. Generalization of the “Global South” Concept: Some might critique Spivak for generalizing the “global South” even as she critiques the term, thereby not fully escaping the very pitfalls she identifies.
3. Limited Practical Application: Critics could point out that while Spivak offers a profound theoretical critique, the essay lacks clear, actionable steps for addressing the issues she raises, particularly in terms of how to practically engage with the “global South” in academic writing.
4. Complexity and Accessibility: The essay’s dense language and complex ideas might be seen as inaccessible to a broader audience, limiting its impact and effectiveness in promoting change across diverse academic and non-academic communities.
5. Potential for Perpetuating Division: Some may argue that Spivak’s critique of identity politics and the global South could unintentionally perpetuate division by reinforcing a binary between the academic elite and marginalized groups.

Suggested Readings: “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Representative Quotations from “How Do We Write, Now? ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“I feel out of joint with this requirement. I think the global South is a reverse racist term, one that ignores the daunting diversity outside Europe and the United States.”	Spivak criticizes the term “global South” for its oversimplification and its tendency to erase the rich diversity of cultures and societies outside the Western world.
“We decide to define what we are not by a bit of academic tourism, choosing academics to represent the global South at conferences and in journals…”	This quote highlights the problematic nature of tokenism in academia, where select individuals are chosen to represent the global South, often perpetuating superficial engagement rather than genuine inclusion.
“Responsibility is so to go toward the other that a response comes forth, rather than an expected echo that will then be rewarded.”	Spivak emphasizes the need for true responsibility in intellectual work, which involves engaging with others in a way that elicits genuine responses, rather than merely seeking affirmation of preconceived notions.
“Let us remind ourselves that the humanities are worldly, not global.”	This statement underscores Spivak’s belief that the humanities should focus on specific, contextualized human experiences rather than attempting to generalize or universalize them under a “global” framework.
“The subaltern is not generalizable.”	Spivak argues that the subaltern, or marginalized groups, cannot be easily categorized or generalized, reflecting her critique of simplistic academic approaches to complex social realities.
“How do we write these days? Having narrowed down the ‘we,’ I would say as if to or as the global South.”	Here, Spivak critiques the tendency of academics to write with a presumed global South audience in mind, often without truly understanding or engaging with the complexities of those they claim to represent.
“We relocate the moment of transgression in the global digital—namely some version of a desire to create a level playing field—and turn that around to use it…”	Spivak suggests that while digital humanities aim to democratize knowledge, they often fail to account for the complexities and inequalities that persist, urging a rethinking of how digital tools are used in academic work.
“These communities write on the memory, and, you can say, only half­ fancifully, they practice a prescientific digitization.”	This quote reflects Spivak’s admiration for the oral traditions of marginalized communities, which she views as a form of knowledge preservation and transmission that predates and challenges modern digital methods.
“The business of sustainable underdevelopment is today the greatest barrier to the creation of a level playing field.”	Spivak critiques development practices that fail to address the root causes of inequality, arguing that they often perpetuate underdevelopment rather than promoting true progress and empowerment for marginalized communities.
“How do we learn how to write on memory, from before different styles of what we recognize as writing developed?”	Spivak challenges the conventional understanding of writing, urging a return to more fundamental forms of knowledge preservation and communication that have been overlooked or devalued by dominant academic paradigms.