http://subalternstudies.com/?p=43

So here we go again … What are the conditions of naming – if we name someone as “subaltern” – are we not already locating and rewriting the subaltern? And I guess in a sense that is what Spivak is implying – and yet in her article on Diasporas old and new – does she fall back into her own trap? 
I have been re- reading Latour’s “We Have never been Modern”  parallel-y with a re-reading of Spivak’s Diasporas old and new
(am working on a pce where I am re-visiting (critiqueing) notions of “new ness” re technology and re diaspora – in other words what’s at stake in continually re-inventing certain technologies as “new” Technologies  and certain travelling groups as “Diasporas”…)
I am wondering about the assumptions that are being made with regard to what we are calling “the Subaltern” ….

give the primitives digital social networking tools and they will market exactly like we do…. still re-reading latour…                                  

http://www.dipdive.com/