Copilot's Spivak.

 I asked Copilot what were my main criticisms of Gayatri Spivak's 'can the subaltern speak'. (I have written a book on Spivak called 'the permanently menstruating Subaltern')

Copilot hallucinated the following-

 Iyer’s Main Criticisms

• Contradictory Use of Western Theory: Iyer argues that Spivak’s essay critiques Western epistemology while paradoxically relying on it—especially Derridean deconstruction and poststructuralist thought. He sees this as philosophically inconsistent, suggesting that Spivak undermines her own critique by using the very tools she claims silence the subaltern.

• Obscurantism and Elitism: He criticizes the essay’s dense and abstract language, which he believes makes it inaccessible to the very subaltern voices it discusses. According to Iyer, this academic opacity reinforces elite discourse rather than challenging it.

• Neglect of Indigenous Frameworks: Iyer contends that Spivak fails to engage with non-Western philosophical traditions or epistemologies. Instead of drawing from Indian or subaltern thought systems, she remains tethered to European intellectual paradigms.

• Silencing Through Theory: Perhaps most provocatively, Iyer suggests that Spivak’s conclusion—that “the subaltern cannot speak”—is itself a form of silencing. He argues that this statement forecloses the possibility of subaltern agency and expression, turning a critique of representation into a fatalistic pronouncement.

What I actually said was 

1) Foucault & Deleuze had stopped being 'radical' a decade before her essay came out. They admitted, in conversation, that the French working class was more concerned with immigration than class war. 'Western epistemology' has no problem with the notion of 'false consciousness' or the notion that women and workers are too stupid to understand what is actually in their own interests. But this is also the case with Eastern epistemology. The plain fact is 'Epistemology' is stupid shit. It isn't itself knowledge. It is merely the stupid opinions of stupid people. Meanwhile, in India, the lower castes had taken power from 'educationally forward castes' over the course of the Sixties and Seventies. They were ruling more and more States. It was foolish to pretend anybody cared about Professors with PhDs from foreign universities. They did not represent an 'elite'. If they were lucky, they got to emigrate. But they wouldn't pull down the big bucks like the IT professionals or people with MBAs. 

2) Spivak is dense. She writes badly because her English is poor. There is no fucking 'elite discourse' in shitty subjects. There are just some senile shitheads pretending they are part and parcel of some Social Justice movement. Actual elites have money and power. Professors of Grievance Studies may get a bit of affirmative action. But that's because people feel sorry for them. 

3) Spivak didn't get that when her great aunt hanged herself while on the rag what she was doing was protesting her father's decision to keep her in school rather than marry her off after puberty. Orthodox Hindus believed that the menstrual blood of an unmarried daughter living under your roof flows backwards and pollutes the ritual sacrifice to the manes. This is called 'pindalopa'. Spivak tells a fairy story about how her great aunt was actually a Revolutionary tasked with an assassination. But, there were no female revolutionaries at the time when her great-aunt killed herself.

Theory can't 'silence' shit. India is a democracy where 'the subaltern' rules the country. That's why the PM, the President and the Chief Justice are all 'subaltern'. As for the elite- either they are billionaires or they are high-powered lawyers, economists or STEM subject mavens. They don't teach Literature or History or Philosophy for a living. Only losers do so. 

Why has Copilot attributed views to me which I do not hold? The answer is that, statistically speaking, books about Spivak are written by people as stupid as she is. If she is against 'Eurocentrism', obviously, books attacking her will accuse her of Eurocentrism. On the other hand if she is against penises, books attacking her will accuse her of having a large number of penises sprouting from different portions of her anatomy.