What is very much a question for me at the moment is that if you are constructed in one particular kind of language, what kinds of violence does it do to your subjectivity if one then has to move into another language, and suppress whatever selves or subjectivities were constructed by the first? And of course, some people have to pass through this process several times. And a small gesture towards beginning to understand this would be to create a demand for multi- lingual anthologies within Australia. There is an incredible and disproportionate resistance to presenting the general Australian public with immigrant writing in English even, but to have it in conjunction with the remainder of these repressed languages seems to be another battle which still has to be fought.
I selected this passage because not only was it very dense, the diction and vocabulary were complicated and unfamiliar. I had very little understanding of any non major points in the passage at first but after breaking down sentences and unfamiliar uses of words like “subjectivities” in particular, I began to find a clearer meaning which I viewed as the culture that comes with understanding a language and the shock it would put on someone to be put into a different language for everyday life.
I think Spivak discusses the problems an individual faces when learning a new language both internally and the societal rejection of them altogether, in order to connect it to the idea that choosing only one person or even a small group to represent another group of people in reality will never be able to represent the whole group accurately especially when there is such resistance to immigrant writing that’s even in english.
I believe that this passage answers the question of identity by illustrating the fact that it is what the society you live in sees of you (and your people) that make it, highlighting the need for the words of individuals like Spivak to be heard in order to prevent dehumanization.