Alcoff’s widely-cited article titled, exactly: “The problem of speaking for others.” Alcoff’s essay is a review of the arguments that have been presented by. ; revised and reprinted in Who Can Speak? Authority and Critical Identity edited by Judith Roof and Robyn Wiegman, University of Illinois Press, ; and . The Problem of Speaking for Others. Author(s): Linda Alcoff. Source: Cultural Critique, No. 20 (Winter, ), pp. Published by: University of.
|Published (Last):||18 February 2006|
|PDF File Size:||17.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.35 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The way I have articulated this problem may imply that individuals make conscious choices about their discursive practice free of ideology and the constraints of material reality.
Interview with Andrew Feenberg. Added to PP index Total downloads 10, of 2, Recent downloads 6 months 31 13, of 2, How can I increase my downloads? These are feminist texts, and yet I write in ways that are frequently critical of them. To our disappointment, he introduces his lecture by explaining that he can not cover the assigned topic, because as a white male he does othegs feel that he can speak for the feminist and post-colonial perspectives which have launched the critical interrogation of postmodernism’s politics.
Now let me turn to the example of George Bush. For example, if a middle class white man were to begin a speech by sharing with us this autobiographical information and then using it as a kind of apologetics for any limitations of his speech, this would leave to those of us in the audience who do not share his social location problemm the work of translating his terms into our own, apprising the applicability of his analysis to our diverse situation, and determining the substantive relevance of his location on his claims.
The Problem of Speaking For Others
By learning as much as possible about the context of reception I can increase my ability to discern at least some of the possible effects. A Journal of Women in Culture and Society In their paper Lugones and Spelman explore the way in which the “demand for the women’s voice” disempowered women of color by not attending to the differences in privilege within the category of women, resulting in a privileging of white women’s voices only.
One cannot simply look at the location of the speaker or her credentials to speak; nor can one look merely at the propositional content of the speech; one must also look at where the speech goes and what it does there.
This may seem an odd way to begin discussing how to speak for, but the point is that the impetus to always be the speaker and to speak in all situations must be seen for what it is: However, it is an illusion to think that, even in the safe space of og support group, a member of the group can, for example, trivialize brother-sister incest as “sex play” without profoundly otners someone else in the group who is trying to maintain her realistic assessment of her brother’s sexual activities with her as a harmful assault against his adult rationalization that “well, for me it was just harmless fun.
Such a desire for mastery and immunity must be resisted.
On the Problem of Speaking for Others
Some have come forward as former workers, but I wonder what impact that has on their careers and on their conceptualizations of their spaces as safe. A further problem with the “Retreat” response is that it may be motivated by a desire to find a method or practice immune from criticism. In speaking for myself, I momentarily create my selfjust as much as when I speak for others I create them as a public, discursive self, a self which is more unified than any subjective experience can support.
Only published works are available at libraries.
I agree with a great deal of Trebilcot’s argument. Trebilcot is explaining here her own reasoning for rejecting these practices, but she is not advocating othera other women probem her in this. One may be speaking about another as an advocate or a messenger if the person cannot speak for herself.
These are by no means original: Our meta-theory of authorship does not preclude the material reality that in discursive spaces there is a speaker or writer credited as the author of her utterances, or that for example the feminist appropriation of the concept “patriarchy” gets tied to Kate Millett, a white Anglo feminist, or that the term feminism itself has been and is associated with a Western origin.
Cameron’s intentions were never in question, but the effects of her writing were argued to be harmful to the needs of Native authors because it is Cameron rather than they who will be listened to and whose books will be bought by readers interested in Native women.
Linda Nicholson New York, Routledge,p. He lectures instead on architecture. Similarly, when one is speaking about another, or simply trying to describe their situation or some aspect of it, one may also be speaking in place of them, i.
When I speak for myself, I am constructing a possible self, a way to be in the world, and am offering that, whether I intend to or not, to others, as one possible way to be. In this sense, a problrm involves asking how a position or view is mediated and constituted through and within the conjunction and conflict of historical, cultural, economic, psychological, and sexual practices.
The Problem of Speaking for Others by Karen Lo on Prezi
Reflection on such problems quickly reveals that no easy solution to the problem of speaking for others can be found by simply restricting the practice to speaking for groups of which one is a member. In the next section I shall consider some of the principal prohlem offered to the problem of speaking rpoblem others. Jaggar – – Hypatia 13 2: This effect occurs because the speaker is positioned as authoritative and empowered, as the knowledgeable subject, while the group in the Third World speaoing reduced, merely because of the structure of the speaking practice, to an object and victim that must be championed from afar.
In other words, a speaker’s location which I take here to refer to her social location or social identity has an epistemically significant impact on that speaker’s claims, and can serve either to authorize or dis-authorize one’s speech.
Yet influential postmodernists such as Gilles Deleuze have characterized as “absolutely fundamental: There is an ambiguity in the two phrases: This loss of control may be taken by some speakers to mean that no speaker can be held accountable for her discursive actions. This conflation was intentional on my part, because it is difficult to distinguish speaking about from speaking for in problen cases.
The Problem of Speaking For Others |
These associations have an effect, an effect of producing distrust on the part of some Third World nationalists, an effect of reinscribing semi-conscious imperialist attitudes on the part of some first world feminists. George Englebretsen – – Dialogue 11 4: To the extent that location is not a fixed essence, and to the extent that there is an uneasy, underdetermined, and contested relationship between location on the one hand porblem meaning and truth on the other, we cannot reduce evaluation of meaning and truth to a simple identification of wlcoff speaker’s location.
Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: Freedom, Identity, and Rights. The “ritual of speaking” as defined above in which an utterance is located always bears on meaning and truth such that there is no possibility of rendering positionality, location, or context irrelevant to content.
Our ability to assess the effects of a given discursive event is limited; our ability to predict these effects is even more difficult.
History of Western Philosophy.