Vorwärts announcing a general strike in Germany on 9 November 1918, at the beginning of the November Revolution.

A general strike is a strike action by a critical mass of the labour force in a city, region, or country. While a general strike can be for political goals, economic goals, or both, it tends to gain its momentum from the ideological or class sympathies of the participants. It is also characterized by participation of workers in a multitude of workplaces, and tends to involve entire communities. The general strike has waxed and waned in popularity since the mid-19th century, and has characterized many historically important strikes.

Purpose[link]

General strikes have been done in order to seek "democracy, political representation and the provision of basic education and healthcare".^[1] In Europe, General Strikes were very common in the 19th and early 20th century. It could be argued that many of them have contributed to rights, such as universal healthcare, low cost college education, and higher taxes on the rich.

In Portugal, a general strike has been called by the federation of public labor unions to avert austerity measures.^[2]

In Honduras, a general strike has been called by Union workers, farmers and other organizations demanding better education, an increase in the minimum wage and against fuel price hikes.^[3]

In Yemen, a general strike has been called by protesters to protest the presidency of that country.^[4]

In Algeria, public sector workers have mounted a general strike for higher wages and improved working conditions.^[5]

At any given moment, there may be general strikes in numerous nations around the world. Government leaders may seek to ban general strikes, and in some cases they are successful. In February, 1947, General Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan, banned a planned general strike of 2,400,000 government workers, stating that "so deadly a social weapon" as the general strike should not be used in the impoverished and emaciated condition of Japan so soon after World War II. Japan's labour leaders complied with his ban.^[6]

Concept[link]

Ralph Chaplin, editor of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) newspaper Solidarity and later, of the Industrial Worker, identified four levels of general strike,

• A General Strike in a community.
• A General Strike in an Industry.
• A national General Strike.
• A revolutionary or class strike-- THE General Strike.^[7]

In the 1905 pamphlet The Social General Strike, published in Chicago in 1905, Stephen Naft had previously acknowledged the same four levels of the general strike:

[The name "General Strike"] is often used to designate the strike of all branches in one trade; for instance the general strike of the miners; when helpers and hoisting engineers, etc. are all out. Then it is used as: General Strike of a city, i.e., "General Strike in Florence", or a General Strike in a whole country or province, for the purpose of gaining political rights, i.e., the right to vote; as in Belgium, or Sweden.^[8]

The profoundest conception of the General Strike, however, [is] the one pointing to a thorough change of the present system: a social revolution of the world; an entire new reorganization; a demolition of the entire old system of all governments...^[8]

Naft's 1905 pamphlet (translated from the German language) traced existing sentiment for this goal of the general strike to proletarians of Spain and Italy.^[9]

The premise of The Social General Strike is that no matter how powerfully the working class organizes itself, it still has no significant power over a congress, or the executive (which has military force at its beck and call). Therefore a general strike called by an "energetic and enthusiastic" minority of workers, may be embraced by the mass of workers who remain unorganized.^[9] Thus it may be possible,

...to completely interrupt production in the whole country, and stop communication and consumption for the ruling classes, and that for a time long enough to totally disorganize the capitalistic society; so that after the complete annihilation of the old system, the working people can take possession through its labor unions of all the means of production...^[10]

The Social General Strike noted the complexity of modern industry, identifying the many stages in the manufacturing process and geographic dispersal of related manufacturing locations as weaknesses of the industrial process during any labor dispute.^[10] The pamphlet notes the problem of hunger during a general strike, and recommends where warehouses are available for the purpose, that proletarians,

...do the same thing as the ruling classes have done uninterruptedly for thousands of years: that is, "consume without producing." This deportment of the ruling classes the working class calls exploitation, and if the proletarians do it, the possessing classes call it plundering—and socialism calls it expropriation.^[11]

However, the pamphlet asserts that,

The immense advantage of the general strike is that it begins entirely lawfully and without any danger for the workers, and for this reason thousands will take part...^[12]

Socialists, anarchists differ on tactics[link]

In 1966, in a study of revolutionary socialism, Milorad M. Drachkovitch of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace (a conservative/libertarian think tank), noted two tactical options which divided late 19th century and early 20th century anarchists from socialists: electoral politics, which the socialists embraced, but anarchists generally opposed; and, the general strike as a mechanism to prevent war, which anarchists supported, but socialists refused to endorse.^[13]

As a group, the Socialists of the period repeatedly rejected the general strike as a tactic;^[14] however, a number of Socialist leaders advocated its use for one reason or another.^[15] Socialist leaders who embraced the general strike tended to see it as an instrument for obtaining political concessions.^[14]

Drachkovitch identified five types of general strikes:

• the political mass strike, a general strike for political rights (such as the right to vote)
• the general strike as a revolutionary act that would transform society
• the general strike as a "revolutionary exercise" which would eventually lead to a transformation of society
• a one day demonstration general strike on May Day (International Workers' Day), aimed at identifying a "worldwide proletariat"
• commencing in 1891, a theoretical mechanism by which to stop wars between nation states^[16]

Drachkovitch perceived the first two concepts, the socialist-friendly general strike for political rights within the system, and the general strike as a revolutionary mechanism to overthrow the existing order — which he associated with a "rising anarcho-syndicalist movement" — as in conflict.^[17] Drachkovitch believed that the difficulty arose from the fact that the general strike was "one instrument", but was frequently considered "without distinction of underlying motives."^[18]

Milorad M. Drachkovitch also observed the variable success of the general strike in actual use:

In Belgium a general strike movement, broken off in one instance without damage to the organizing forces, eventually led to universal suffrage; in Holland a general strike collapsed with disastrous consequences; in Sweden, a general strike was conducted and terminated with disciplined order but did not attain the desired results. In Italy, general strikes had been both socially effective and politically unproductive. On the other hand, the events of January 1905 in Russia once more seemed to underscore the suitability of the general strike as a decisively revolutionary action.^[18]

Syndicalism and the general strike[link]

Orthodox labor unions typically act as a representative from the workers to employers. They bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions.

Other labor organizations typically bargain for the same wage, hour, and conditions improvements, but embrace a critique of capital as establishing and maintaining a permanent working class and an elite ruling class. These unions therefore advocate a permanent solution to the circumstances of strikes, injunctions, and crossing other workers' picket lines.^[19][20][21] Given the hierarchical relationships of the existing economic system, these other unions perceive the necessity of a radical change in the social order. In brief, these unions are radical in their orientation, and may accurately be described as revolutionary.

One labour movement philosophy of "peaceful revolution" is known as syndicalism. Its tactical method is the strike — the regular strike for protecting the material welfare of the workers, and the general strike as a means to accomplish the desired permanent solution to industrial strife.^[22] Syndicalism has been a common union organizing principle in a number of European countries, including France, Spain, and Italy.

One variation of syndicalism is anarcho-syndicalism, which (in comparison to syndicalism) develops rank and file power with democratic traditions to maintain worker control over union leadership.

Industrial Workers of the World[link]

In the United States, Britain, and (to a lesser extent) Australia, the trend toward revolutionary unionism culminated in the growth of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Technically, the IWW is described as a union that practices revolutionary industrial unionism. Some consider the revolutionary industrial unionism of the IWW to be a form of anarcho-syndicalism.^[23] Others point out differences; for example, Ralph Chaplin has written,

...the I.W.W. concept of the General Strike differs almost as much from that of the anarcho-syndicalist as from that of the political or craft unionist. In form, structure and objective, the I.W.W. is more all-sufficient, more mature and more modern than any of its anarcho-syndicalist predecessors.^[7]

The IWW began to fully embrace the general strike in 1910-1911.^[24] The ultimate goal of the general strike, according to Industrial Workers of the World theory, is to displace capitalists and give control over the means of production to workers.^[24][25] In a 1911 speech in New York City, IWW organizer Haywood explained his view of the economic situation, and why he believed a general strike was justified,

The capitalists have wealth; they have money. They invest the money in machinery, in the resources of the earth. They operate a factory, a mine, a railroad, a mill. They will keep that factory running just as long as there are profits coming in. When anything happens to disturb the profits, what do the capitalists do? They go on strike, don't they? They withdraw their finances from that particular mill. They close it down because there are no profits to be made there. They don't care what becomes of the working class. But the working class, on the other hand, has always been taught to take care of the capitalist's interest in the property.^[26]

Bill Haywood believed that industrial unionism made possible the general strike, and the general strike made possible industrial democracy.^[26] According to Wobbly theory, the conventional strike is an important (but not the only) weapon for improving wages, hours, and working conditions for working people. These strikes are also good training to help workers educate themselves about the class struggle, and about what it will take to execute an eventual general strike for the purpose of achieving industrial democracy.^[27] During the final general strike, workers would not walk out of their shops, factories, mines, and mills, but would rather occupy their workplaces and take them over.^[27] Prior to taking action to initiate industrial democracy, workers would need to educate themselves with technical and managerial knowledge in order to operate industry.^[27]

According to labor historian Philip S. Foner, the Wobbly conception of industrial democracy is intentionally not presented in detail by IWW theorists; in that sense, the details are left to the "future development of society".^[28] However, certain concepts are implicit. Industrial democracy will be "a new society [built] within the shell of the old."^[29] Members of the industrial union educate themselves to operate industry according to democratic principles, and without the current hierarchical ownership/management structure. Issues such as production and distribution would be managed by the workers themselves.^[29]

In 1927 the IWW called for a three day nationwide walkout — in essence, a demonstration general strike — to protest the execution of anarchists Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.^[30] The most notable response to the call was in the Walsenburg coal district of Colorado, where 1,132 miners stayed off the job, and only 35 went to work,^[31] a participation rate which led directly to the Colorado coal strike of 1927.

On March 18, 2011, the Industrial Workers of the World website (www.iww.org) supported an endorsement of a general strike as a followup to protests against Governor Scott Walker's proposed labor legislation in Wisconsin, following a motion passed by the South Central Federation of Labor (SCFL) of Wisconsin endorsing a statewide general strike as a response to those legislative proposals.^[32][33] The SCFL website states,

At SCFL’s monthly meeting Monday, Feb. 21, delegates endorsed the following: "The SCFL endorses a general strike, possibly for the day Walker signs his 'budget repair bill.'" An ad hoc committee was formed to explore the details. SCFL did not CALL for a general strike because it does not have that authority.^[33]

Reaction of orthodox labor[link]

The year 1919 saw a number of general strikes throughout North America, including two that were considered significant — the Seattle General Strike, and the Winnipeg General Strike. While the IWW participated in the Seattle General Strike, that action was called by the Seattle Central Labor Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor (AFL, predecessor of the AFL-CIO).^[34]

In June, 1919, the AFL national organization, in session in Atlantic City, New Jersey, passed resolutions in opposition to the general strike. The official report of these proceedings described the convention as the "largest and in all probability the most important Convention ever held" by the organization, in part for having engineered the "overwhelming defeat of the so-called Radical element" via crushing a "One Big Union proposition", and also for defeating a proposal for a nationwide general strike, both "by a vote of more than 20 to 1."^[35] The AFL amended its constitution to disallow any central labor union (i.e., regional labor councils) from "taking a strike vote without prior authorization of the national officers of the union concerned."^[35] The change was intended to "check the spread of general strike sentiment and prevent recurrences of what happened at Seattle and is now going on at Winnepeg."^[35] The penalty for any unauthorized strike vote was revocation of that body's charter.^[35]

History[link]

Rome[link]

The first general strike may have been the secessio plebis in ancient Rome. In the Outline Of History, H.G. Wells recorded "the general strike of the plebeians; the plebeians seem to have invented the strike, which now makes its first appearance in history."^[36] Their first strike occurred because they "saw with indignation their friends, who had often served the state bravely in the legions, thrown into chains and reduced to slavery at the demand of patrician creditors."^[36]

Wells noted that "[t]he patricians made a mean use of their political advantages to grow rich through the national conquests at the expense not only of the defeated enemy, but of the poorer plebeian..."^[36] The plebeians, who were expected to obey the laws, but were not allowed to know the laws (which patricians were able to recite from memory),^[37] were successful, winning the right to appeal any injustice to the general assembly.^[36] In 450 BC., in a concession resulting from the rebellion of the plebeians, the laws of Rome were written for all to peruse.^[37]

North America[link]

North American general strikes include the 1877 Saint Louis general strike, which grew out of the events of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 across the United States, the 1892 New Orleans general strike, and the Winnipeg General Strike of 1919.

Winnipeg General Strike[link]

The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 was one of the most influential strikes in Canadian history, and became the platform for future labour reforms.

Although many Canadian companies had enjoyed enormous profits on World War I contracts, wages and working conditions were dismal and labour regulations were mostly non-existent.

In Winnipeg, workers within the building and metal industries attempted to strengthen their bargaining ability by creating umbrella unions, the Building Trade Council and Metal Trade Council respectively, to encompass all metal and building unions. Although employers were willing to negotiate with each union separately, they refused to bargain with the Building and Metal Trade Councils, disapproving of the constituent unions that had joined the umbrella organization, and citing employers' inability to meet proposed wage demands. Restrictive labour policy in the 1900s meant that a union could be recognized voluntarily by employers, or through strike action, but in no other way. Workers from both industrial groupings therefore struck to gain union recognition and to compel recognition of their collective bargaining rights.

At 11:00 a.m. on Thursday May 15, 1919, virtually the entire working population of Winnipeg had gone on strike. Somewhere around 30,000 workers in the public and private sectors walked off their jobs.^[38] Even essential public employees such as firefighters went on strike, but returned midway through the strike with the approval of the Strike Committee. Although relations with the police and City Council were tense, the strike was non-violent in its beginning stages until the confrontation on Bloody Saturday.

On June 10 the federal government ordered the arrest of eight strike leaders (including J.S. Woodsworth and Abraham Albert Heaps). A week later, about 25,000 strikers assembled for a demonstration at Market Square, where Winnipeg Mayor Charles Frederick Gray read the Riot Act. Troubled by the growing number of protestors and fearing violence, Mayor Gray called in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police who rode in on horseback charging into the crowd of strikers, beating them with clubs and firing weapons.^[38] This violent action resulted in many people injured, numerous arrests and the death of two strikers. Four eastern European immigrants were also rounded up at this time and eventually two were deported, one voluntarily to the United States and the other to Eastern Europe. This day, which came to be known as “Bloody Saturday”,^[39] ended with Winnipeg virtually under military occupation.

1919 Seattle general strike[link]

In Seattle, 35,000 shipyard workers went on strike for a pay increase. The Seattle Central Labor Council called for a city-wide strike in support. More than one hundred union locals voted to strike. Total number of strikers were sixty-thousand union workers, joined by 40,000 other workers who walked out in sympathy.^[40]

The city was successfully shut down, except for essential needs such as fire protection and hospital laundry. Thirty-five neighborhood milk stations were set up throughout the city, and large kitchens prepared thirty thousand meals per day.^[40]

National leadership of the American Federation of Labor and other top union officials opposed the strike, and successfully brought pressure to end it.^[41]

According to Howard Zinn, participants in the strike were mostly affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, and there were only a few IWW locals.^[42] Zinn observed,

The strike had been peaceful. But when it was over, there were raids and arrests: on the Socialist party headquarters, on a printing plant. Thirty-nine members of the IWW were jailed as "ring-leaders of anarchy."^[42]

1934 textile workers[link]

The term "general strike" is sometimes applied to large-scale strikes of all of the workers in a particular industry, such as the Textile workers strike (1934). Such "general" strikes, however massive they might be, involve workers only in a particular workplace.

1934 dock workers strike[link]

The classic general strike involves workers (and members of the working-class) who may have no direct stake in the outcome of the strike. For example, in the San Francisco General Strike of 1934, both union and non-union workers struck for four days to protest the police and employers' tactics that had killed two picketers and in support of the longshoremen's and seamen's demands.

1934 Teamsters strike[link]

The distinction between a strike of different organizations, and a general strike is not always clear. In the Minneapolis Teamsters Strike of 1934, as an example, many building trades unions and organizations of unemployed workers in federal work projects struck in sympathy with striking truck drivers and to protest the police violence against picketers. Thousands of others participated in demonstrations to support the strikers. Those sympathy strikes, while sizable, never acquired the scope necessary to amount to a "general strike", however, and the organizers of the Teamsters' strike did not describe it as such.

1946 Oakland strike[link]

In October 1946, women at two department stores went on strike. On December 1, 400 members of the city's police force were employed to break the strike. Police succeeded in breaking the picket line, but their actions created a spontaneous general strike throughout the city. An estimated 130,000 people stopped work, essentially shutting down the city.^[43]

Europe[link]

[edit] The Belgian experience and Rosa Luxemburg

Milorad M. Drachkovitch noted four mass strikes in Belgium — 1886, 1887, 1891, and 1893 — which eventually led to universal suffrage.^[16]

Belgium was likely one of the first important industrial countries where a general strike happened, at least in Europe.^[44] In 1886, there was the Walloon Jacquerie of 1886, but without an actual leading political organisation. The final strike was the Belgian general strike of 1893.^[45]

In his book about Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Frölich quotes several experiences of general strikes, including the Belgian general strike for the universal suffrage in 1893. Although the strike succeeded, absolute equality of suffrage had yet to be obtained.

In 1902 the Belgian Labour Party launched an other strike, which failed. Many German social democrats thought such an experiment was absurd. Drachkovitch observed that German socialists were against the general strike because "under the Kaiser, supporting it was not very safe."^[46]

Rosa Luxemburg had a different view, criticizing the Belgian Labour Party for perceived tactical incompetence: A general strike forged in advance within the fetters of legality is like a war demonstration with cannons dumped into a river within the very sight of the enemy.^[47]

Carl E. Schorske wrote about the same Belgian phenomenon studied by Luxemburg as well as the German opposition to it:

In German Social Democratic circles, the general strike suffered from the hereditary taint of its anarchist origins (...) Rosa Luxemburg, who studied the Belgian strike, was particularly impressed with its success in activating the political consciousness of the backward portions of the population. She was not yet however, prepared to give it European-wide significance. Luxemburg felt it to be appropriate only in countries in which industry was geographically concentrated.^[48]

The Walloon author Claude Renard explained the relative successes of the general strike by the relative small territory of Belgium (and especially Wallonia where the industry was concentrated). He also quoted Luxemburg who criticized Le Peuple, the official newspaper of the Belgian Labour Party who was again in favour of the German method after the General strike of 1902 failed. In Die Neue Zeit, she pointed out the small territory of Belgium, the fact that only 3 or 400 thousand workers were able to make a country strike-bound. But she insisted also about a climate of liberty and democracy where the working class is really stronger, in France as well as in Belgium.^[49]

For several historians, it seemed that Wallonia sprang from these strikes^[50] and likely from the last Belgian general strike the 1960-1961 Winter General Strike.

Spain[link]

General strikes were frequent in Spain during the early 20th century, where revolutionary anarcho-syndicalism was most popular.

Notable general strikes[link]

The largest general strike that ever stopped the economy of an advanced industrial country – and the first general wildcat strike in history – was May 1968 in France.^[51] The prolonged strike involved eleven million workers for two weeks in a row,^[51] and its impact was such that it almost caused the collapse of the de Gaulle government. Other notable general strikes include:

• 494 BC – The Aventine Secession, Ancient Rome, creating the Tribune of the Plebs
• 449 BC – A secessio plebis leading to the adoption of the Twelve Tables
• 287 BC – A secessio plebis leading to the adoption of the Lex Hortensia
• 1842 – 1842 General Strike, Great Britain
• 1886 - Walloon jacquerie of 1886 Wallonia
• 1893 - Belgian general strike of 1893 Belgium Wallonia
• 1902 – Geneva General Strike of 1902, Switzerland
• 1905 – The Great October Strike, Russia
• 1907 – Geneva General Strike of 1907, Switzerland
• 1907 - New Orleans Levee General Strike, United States
• 1909 – Swedish General Strike
• 1909 - Uprising of the 20,000
• 1912 – Brisbane General Strike, Australia
• 1912 – Zurich General Strike of 1912, Switzerland
• 1917 – Australian General Strike
• 1917 – Brazilian General Strike
• 1917 – Spanish General Strike
• 1918 – Swiss General Strike
• 1919 – Barcelona General Strike, Spain
• 1919 – Winnipeg General Strike, Canada
• 1919 – Seattle General Strike, US
• 1919 – General Strike in Basel and Zurich 1919, Switzerland
• 1920 – German Kapp Putsch Strike
• 1922 – Italian General Strike
• 1920 - German passive resistance strikes at the Ruhr
• 1926 – UK General Strike of 1926
• 1933 - French general strike of 1933
• 1932 – Geneva General Strike of 1932, Switzerland
• 1934 – West Coast Longshoremen's Strike, US
• 1934 – Minneapolis Teamsters Strike, US
• 1934 – Toledo Auto-Lite Strike, US
• 1936 – Palestinian general strike
• 1936 - French general strike of 1936
• 1936 – Syrian General Strike
• 1941 – February Strike, Netherlands
• 1942 – Luxembourgian General Strike
• 1946 – Indian General Strike
• 1946 - Oakland, California General Strike
• 1950 – Austrian General Strikes
• 1950 - General strike against Leopold III of Belgium
• 1953 - Hartal 1953, Ceylon
• 1954 - General strike of 1954, Honduras
• 1956 – Finnish General Strike
• 1958 - Bahamas General Strike
• 1960 - 1960-1961 Winter General Strike in Wallonia
• 1968 – French General Strike
• 1973 – Uruguayan General Strike
• 1974 – Ulster Workers Council Strike, Northern Ireland.
• 1984 – Uruguayan General Strike
• 1988 – Spanish General Strike
• 1989 – 2-hour general strike of all citizens of Czechoslovakia during the Velvet Revolution
• 1992 – Nepalese General Strike
• 1995 – French Public Sector Strikes
• 1995 – Days of Action, Canada
• 2000 – Cochabamba General Strike, Bolivia
• 2002 – Italian General Strike
• 2005 – Bolivian Gas Conflict
• 2006 - April 2006 Nepalese general strike
• 2007 – Guinea General Strike
• 2009 – French Caribbean General Strikes
• 2010 - Spanish General Strike
• 2011 - Oakland, California general strike

See also[link]

Organized labour portal

• Secessio plebis
• Hartal
• Stay away
• Direct action
• Occupation of factories
• Workers' self-management
• Georges Sorel
• List of strikes
• Industrial unionism
• Industrial Workers of the World

References[link]

External links[link]

• Chronology of general strikes
• The Mass Strike by Rosa Luxemburg (1906)
• General Strike 1842 From chartists.net, downloaded 5 June 2006
• From Reflections on Violence
• Strike! Famous Worker Uprisings - slideshow by Life magazine
• Strikes and You from the National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
• Seattle General Strike Project
• Oakland 1946! Project

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Born	(1942-02-24) 24 February 1942 (age 70) Calcutta, British India
Era	20th-century philosophy
Region	Post-colonial theory
School	Post-colonial theory Post-structuralism
Main interests	History of ideas · Literature · Deconstruction · Feminism · Marxism
Notable ideas	"subaltern", "strategic essentialism"
Influenced by Immanuel Kant, Jacques Derrida, Karl Marx, Paul de Man, Michel Foucault, Antonio Gramsci

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (born 24 February 1942) is an Indian literary critic, a theorist, and a University Professor, the highest honor for professors at Columbia University, where she is a founding member of the school's Institute for Comparative Literature and Society.^[1] She is best known for the essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?", considered a founding text of postcolonialism, and for her translation of Jacques Derrida's Of Grammatology. She describes herself as a "practical Marxist-feminist-deconstructionist".^[2]

Spivak is best known for her contemporary cultural and critical theories to challenge the "legacy of colonialism" and the way readers engage with literature and culture. She often focuses on the cultural texts of those who are marginalized by dominant western culture: the new immigrant; the working class; women; and other "postcolonial subjects".^{[citation needed]}

Life[link]

Spivak was born Gayatri Chakravorty, to parents Pares Chandra and Sivani Chakravorty, in Calcutta, India, 24 February 1942.^[3] After completing her school education from the St. John's Diocesan Girls' Higher Secondary School, she received an undergraduate degree in English at the Presidency College, Kolkata under the University of Calcutta (1959), graduating with first class honours and received gold medals for English and Bengali literature.^[3] After this, she completed her Master's in English from Cornell University, and then pursued her Ph.D. while teaching at the University of Iowa.^[3]

Her dissertation was on W.B. Yeats, directed by Paul de Man at Cornell, titled Myself Must I Remake: The Life and Poetry of W.B. Yeats.^[3] At Cornell, she was the second woman elected to membership in the Telluride Association. She was briefly married to Talbot Spivak in the 1960s. The Bride Wore the Traditional Gold by Talbot Spivak is an autobiographical novel that deals with the early years of this marriage.^[4]

In March 2007 Spivak became the University Professor at Columbia University, making her the only woman of colour to be bestowed the University's highest honour in its 264-year history.^[2]

Works[link]

In "Can The Subaltern Speak", Spivak discusses the race and power dynamics involved in the banning of sati. Spivak writes that all we hear about sati are accounts (by British colonizers or Hindu leaders) of what sati meant to, or how it oppressed, women, but we never hear from the sati-performing women themselves.^{[citation needed]}

Spivak's translation of Derrida's Of Grammatology, which included a translator's introduction that has since been described as "setting a new standard for self-reflexivity in prefaces," (Spivak Reader^[3], p. 1) brought her to prominence. After this, she carried out a series of historical studies (as a member of the "Subaltern Studies Collective") and literary critiques of imperialism and international feminism. She has often referred to herself as a "practical Marxist-feminist-deconstructionist".^[2] Her overriding ethico-political concern has been the tendency of institutional and cultural discourses/practices to exclude and marginalize the subaltern, especially subaltern women. Edward Said wrote that "She pioneered the study in literary theory of non-Western women and produced one of the earliest and most coherent accounts of that role available to us."^[5] In "Can the Subaltern Speak" (1988)^[6] Spivak highlights how Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault confine the decentering of subjectivity to the West, which represents the non-Western other as real and knowable.

Her recent work, A Critique of Postcolonial Reason, published in 1999, explores how major works of European metaphysics (e.g., Kant, Hegel) not only tend to exclude the subaltern from their discussions, but actively prevent non-Europeans from occupying positions as fully human subjects.

Spivak coined the term "strategic essentialism," which refers to a sort of temporary solidarity for the purpose of social action. For example, the attitude that women's groups have many different agendas makes it difficult for feminists to work for common causes. "Strategic essentialism" is about the need to accept temporarily an "essentialist" position in order to be able to act.

Spivak taught at several universities before arriving at Columbia in 1991. She has been a Guggenheim fellow, has received numerous academic honors including an honorary doctorate from Oberlin College,^[7] and has been on the editorial board of academic journals such as boundary 2. On March 9, 2007, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger appointed Spivak University Professor, the institution's highest faculty rank. In a letter to the faculty, he wrote,

Spivak's writing has been described by some as opaque.^[8] It has also been suggested that her work puts style ahead of substance.^[9]

In her defense, it has been argued that this sort of criticism reveals an unwillingness to substantively engage with her texts.^[10] Judith Butler has noted that Spivak's supposedly inaccessible language has, in fact, resonated with, and profoundly changed the thinking of, "tens of thousands of activists and scholars." ^[11] And Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton, who has called her writing "inaccessible," noted nevertheless that "there can thus be few more important critics of our age than the likes of Spivak.... She has probably done more long-term political good, in pioneering feminist and post-colonial studies within global academia than almost any of her theoretical colleagues."^[12]

In speeches given and published since 2002, Spivak has addressed the issue of terrorism. Clearly stating that her intention is to bring an end to suicide bombing, she has explored and, "tried to imagine what message [such acts] might contain.".^[13] These ruminations have included descriptions such as: "Suicidal resistance is a message inscribed in the body when no other means will get through."^[13]

One critic has suggested that this sort of stylized language may serve to blur important moral issues relating to terrorism.^[14] However, she stated in the text of the speech that "Single coerced yet willed suicidal 'terror' is in excess of the destruction of dynastic temples and the violation of women, tenacious and powerfully residual. It has not the banality of evil. It is informed by the stupidity of belief taken to extreme."^[13]

Philanthropy[link]

Spivak founded The Pares Chandra Chakravorty Memorial Literacy Project Inc., a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, in 1997, to provide a primary education of quality for children in some of the poorest regions of the globe, continuing work that Spivak had started doing in 1986. The Project currently operates schools in rural areas of West Bengal, India. By setting up schools and giving sustained training to local teachers who operate them with the help of local supervisors, the Project seeks to offer children in these areas the resources to enter the mainstream education system for high school and beyond.

The Project is committed to using the existing state curriculum and textbooks to train teachers, in the belief that by using these materials they can better enable their students to enter the national education system on equal terms with others. "Since India constantly brags about being the world's largest democracy, and this is a large sector of the electorate, what I'm trying to do is develop rituals of democratic habits," she said of the Project.^[15]

Books[link]

Academic[link]

• Myself, I Must Remake: The Life and Poetry of W.B. Yeats (1974).
• Of Grammatology (translation, with a critical introduction, of Derrida's text) (1976)
• In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics (1987).
• Selected Subaltern Studies (edited with Ranajit Guha) (1988)
• The Post-Colonial Critic (1990)
• Outside in the Teaching Machine (1993).
• The Spivak Reader (1995).
• A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Towards a History of the Vanishing Present (1999).
• Death of a Discipline (2003).
• Other Asias (2005).
• An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization (2012).

Literary[link]

• Imaginary Maps (translation with critical introduction of three stories by Mahasweta Devi) (1994)
• Breast Stories (translation with critical introduction of three stories by Mahasweta Devi) (1997)
• Old Women (translation with critical introduction of two stories by Mahasweta Devi) (1999)
• Song for Kali: A Cycle (translation with introduction of story by Ramproshad Sen) (2000)
• Chotti Munda and His Arrow (translation with critical introduction of the novel by Mahasweta Devi) (2002)
• Red Thread (forthcoming)

See also[link]

• List of deconstructionists
• Postcolonialism
• Postcolonial feminism
• Subaltern Studies

References[link]

External links[link]

• 'Righting Wrongs' (Read full article)
• 'Woman' as Theatre in Radical Philosophy
• Full article "Can the Subaltern Speak?"
• "In the Gaudy Supermarket" – A critical review of A Critique of Post-Colonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present by Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books, May 1999
• "Exacting Solidarities" – Letters responding to Eagleton's review of Spivak by Judith Butler and others
• Glossary of Key Terms in the Work of Spivak

Bibliography[link]

• Stephen Morton, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007).
• Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Donna Landry, and Gerald M. MacLean, The Spivak reader: selected works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Routledge, 1996).
• Suzana Milevska 'Resistance that cannot be recognised as such: Suzana Milevska interviews Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak' n.paradoxa: international feminist art journal Jan 2005 vol. 15 pp.6-12

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2009)

Scott Olsen
Chicago White Sox
Pitcher
Born: (1984-01-12) January 12, 1984 (age 28) Kalamazoo, Michigan
Bats: Left	Throws: Left
MLB debut
June 25, 2005 for the Florida Marlins
Career statistics (through 2011 season)
Win–Loss	37-49
Earned run average	4.85
Strikeouts	528
Teams
Florida Marlins (2005–2008) Washington Nationals (2009–2010)

Scott Matthew Olsen (born January 12, 1984, in Kalamazoo, Michigan) is an American professional baseball pitcher for the Chicago White Sox organization.

Early life[link]

Olsen was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He spent his middle school years in Stevensville, MI, and attended Lakeshore Middle School then attended Crystal Lake South High School in Crystal Lake, Illinois, for high school where he was all-conference in baseball. He was drafted 173rd overall during the sixth round of the 2002 Major League Baseball Draft by the Florida Marlins.

MLB career[link]

Florida Marlins[link]

2005 season[link]

Olsen played his first season in the MLB in 2005 with the Florida Marlins. The team activated him on June 25, 2005, when pitcher Josh Beckett went on the disabled list. Olsen had one win and one loss in five starts, with a 3.98 ERA during the season, but was also later sent to the disabled list with an elbow injury.

2006 season[link]

During the 2006 season with the Florida Marlins, Olsen went 12-10 with a 4.04 ERA. With his 10+ wins and the 10+ wins of his fellow rookies Josh Johnson, Ricky Nolasco and Anibal Sanchez, the 2006 Marlins became the first team in Major League Baseball history with four rookie pitchers with ten or more wins in one season.

With his 166 strikeouts, Olsen now holds the single-season record for the most strikeouts by a Marlins rookie. He had two 10-or-more strikeout games: 11 vs. the Pittsburgh Pirates on July 27 and 10 vs. the New York Mets on August 1. His 11-strikeout performance against Pittsburgh was the most by any of the Marlins pitchers in 2006.

2007 season[link]

Olsen pitching for the Marlins on February 27, 2007.

As a hitter, Olsen began the 2007 season 6-for-14 with two runs batted in.

Olsen finished the season with a 10-15 record and a 5.81 ERA. He had 133 strikeouts in 176.2 innings. He was tied with two other Marlins starters for the most wins during the season. His .384 OBP-against was the highest in the majors, as was his .315 batting-average-against and .504 slugging-percentage-against.[1]

2008 season[link]

With the departure of Dontrelle Willis, Olsen admitted to reporters that he coveted the "pitching ace" role. However, Ricky Nolasco put himself in that role with a break-out season. Olsen's 13 intentional-walks-given-up for the season were the most in the majors.[2]

Washington Nationals[link]

On November 11, 2008, he was traded with left fielder Josh Willingham to the Washington Nationals for second baseman Emilio Bonifacio, and minor leaguers right-hander P.J. Dean, and infielder Jake Smolinski.^[1]

Shoulder tendinitis forced Olsen to miss about a month and a half, from May 16 to June 29.^[2]

Olsen missed the rest of the season following a diagnosis of a left labrum tear following a mid-July start. Surgery to repair the labrum was performed on July 23, 2009.^[3]

On December 12, 2009, Olsen, was non-tendered a contract by the Washington Nationals making him a free agent.

On December 13. 2009 Olsen, re-signed with the Washington Nationals for 1 year $1 million.^[4]

In 2010 Olsen started in the minors, but after one class AAA start was called up. In early May he took a no-hitter into the eighth inning against the Atlanta Braves.^[5] The game took place amidst a five game streak where Olsen went 2-0 with a 1.11 ERA.^[6] But on May 21 he experienced stiffness in his left shoulder that forced him to the disabled list.^[7]

On November 6, 2010, Olsen was outrighted by the Nationals, and elected free agency.

Pittsburgh Pirates[link]

On December 6, 2010, Olsen tentatively agreed to a one-year, incentive-laden agreement with the Pittsburgh Pirates.^[8] He was released on May 14, 2011.^[9]

Chicago White Sox[link]

On January 25, 2012, Olsen signed a minor league contract with the Chicago White Sox. The deal included a major league option for 2013.

Suspensions, confrontations and legal trouble[link]

Olsen has had a history of disciplinary problems with the Marlins and legal issues. He was given a black eye by friend and former teammate Randy Messenger during the 2006 season. Shortly afterwards, then-manager Joe Girardi pulled Olsen by the collar and confronted him.

In a 7-6 loss to the New York Mets in July 2006, there was an incident involving former teammate Miguel Cabrera. While pitching to Mets catcher Paul Lo Duca, Lo Duca hit a hard grounder that glanced off Cabrera's glove and rolled into left field. A run scored and Lo Duca raced to second for a double. While the ball glanced off of Cabrera's glove, Olsen seemed to believe that Cabrera did not give his full effort to get to the ball, and as they came off the field, Olsen could be seen shouting something at Cabrera. A moment later, television cameras showed Cabrera in the crowded dugout reaching past teammates to poke his finger at Olsen as the pitcher walked past him. Olsen tried to jab back at Cabrera, who charged Olsen and tried to kick the pitcher before both players were quickly separated by teammates.

In September 2006, Olsen said he hated the Philadelphia Phillies because they dominated the Marlins. His emotions boiled over in the sixth inning of a May 2007 game versus the Phillies, when he became angry at Chase Utley for calling time just before a pitch. The next pitch was ball four, and Utley trotted to first base as Olsen angrily shouted and waved his glove at him.

In June 2007, Olsen received an unspecified fine for making an obscene gesture towards fans during a game against the Milwaukee Brewers in Milwaukee.

On July 15, 2007, during a start against the Washington Nationals, Olsen had a confrontation with pitcher Sergio Mitre in the tunnel heading toward the team clubhouse. Olsen ripped his jersey off and tossed it in the direction of a trainer. According to a source, Mitre and other Marlins took exception to Olsen's actions. That's when tensions got heated. As they left the dugout area, Mitre pinned Olsen against a wall before the two were separated by teammates. Olsen then received a two-game suspension for insubordination, but was still scheduled to make his next start the following Friday against the Cincinnati Reds.

After serving his two-game suspension, and after making his scheduled July 20, 2007, start, Olsen was arrested by police in Aventura, Florida after fleeing from police following a speeding violation (he was clocked going 48 MPH in a 35 MPH zone). He fled for about a mile, at which point he stopped at his home and sat in a plastic chair in the front yard. When police arrived and tried to arrest him, he kicked at the officers who then used a taser to subdue him. Olsen failed a field sobriety test and refused a breathalyzer test. He was booked on charges of driving under the influence, resisting arrest with violence and fleeing and eluding a police officer.^[10]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Career statistics and player information from MLB, or ESPN, or Baseball-Reference, or Fangraphs, or The Baseball Cube, or Baseball-Reference (Minors)
• Scott Olsen: Profile on the Fish@Bat Florida Marlins Wiki
• Scott Olsen - Yahoo! Sports
• Scott Olsen - AroundtheDiamond.com