What Is Spivak Imperialism

In “Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism,” Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak asserts that the British mission to civilize its subjects in the age of imperialism influenced the socialization of literature. Consequently, Spivak engages with Brontë’s Jane Eyre as an example of feminist individualism, whereas Spivak argues its purposeful absence in Frankenstein suggests Shelley’s own criticisms.
Central to Spivak’s discussion of socializing identity in the literature of the imperial era, she insists the culture of imperialism profoundly influenced the writings of British authors. Distinguishing between author and text, Spivak asserts that the focus in Jane Eyre on obtaining individuality is emblematic of society’s social project (246). Spivak’s
Spivak claims that Shelley distrusts the “utilitarian,” scientific approach to creating society (256). Importantly, Spivak identifies the disharmony within Frankenstein of the Kantian philosophy of a “three-part human” who possesses theoretical reasoning, practical reason, and aesthetic judgement. Interestingly, Spivak notices that Shelley does not attribute these three characteristics to any one character. Victor Frankenstein is, to Spivak, the embodiment of only the theoretical reasoning of utilitarianism (256). Despite his rationalities, Victor perceives his own creation an utter “catastrophe” (Shelley, 35). Significantly, Spivak ties Frankenstein’s failure with imperialism’s social project. Further, Frankenstein’s fervor for becoming godlike, reveling in the “glory” of discovery, is analogous to the attitudes of imperialists imposing civilization on conquered subjects (23). Ultimately, this is at the heart of Spivak’s argument: Shelley, through Frankenstein, rejects social engineering as a result of the imperialist
While they are similar in foreign-ness, both characters are “differentiated” and can never be “identical” (Spivak, 257-58). There is importance in the fact that, though both characters learn--even weep upon discovering “the hapless fate” of native americans--by the same way, they are fundamentally different (Shelley, 83). After all, with exception to the blind De Lacey, the family which shelters and protects Safie does not accept the creature. Shelley engages with the creature as the ultimate societal other, which breaks standard conceptions of imperialist