The Transcendental Subaltern

Byron Taylor

doi:10.1163/24056480-00503003

Abstract

Abstract Was Immanuel Kant Russian? More striking than the fact itself is the length of time it was overlooked: following historian Alexander Etkind’s research on the topic, this paper details Königsberg’s occupation by the Russian Empire, considering the possibilities of reinstating Kant’s thought in the postcolonial tradition, more specifically that of the subaltern (as framed by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). Taking this colonial context into account via a range of historical records and correspondences, I argue for a postcolonial reinterpretation and re-evaluation of the philosopher’s work, beginning with his famous essay on the topic of enlightenment. In what ways does this pertain to the enlightenment, as Kant sees it, and the way he distinguishes between the public and private spheres? Furthermore, how does Spivak’s reading of Kant overlook the subaltern status that she herself defines?

Highlights

In 1757, Immanuel Kant sent the following letter to the Russian Empress Elizabeth II, where he promised that
Via free access the transcendental subaltern. This may come as a surprise: firstly, we are invariably unfamiliar with any connection between Immanuel Kant and the Russian Empire; and, do the words “enlightened” and “autocratic” not explicitly contradict each other, and our understanding of the enlightenment more broadly?
To make some modest contribution to such a vast task as La Vopa and Etkind suggest, as articulated in argument [1], will mean turning to the more specific aim of argument [2], namely, the ways in which Kant’s postcolonial experience bears resonance in his famous answer to the question “What is Enlightenment?” Following its analysis, I wish to concentrate on what La Vopa refers to as “the internal splitting” and “doubling” of the subaltern, as characterised by what Kant deems the public and private spheres of enlightenment

Summary

Introduction

In 1757, Immanuel Kant sent the following letter to the Russian Empress Elizabeth II, where he promised that. This may come as a surprise: firstly, we are invariably unfamiliar with any connection between Immanuel Kant and the Russian Empire (that he was, its subject); and, do the words “enlightened” and “autocratic” not explicitly contradict each other, and our understanding of the enlightenment more broadly?. To make some modest contribution to such a vast task as La Vopa and Etkind suggest, as articulated in argument [1], will mean turning to the more specific aim of argument [2], namely, the ways in which Kant’s postcolonial experience bears resonance in his famous answer to the question “What is Enlightenment?” Following its analysis, I wish to concentrate on what La Vopa refers to as “the internal splitting” and “doubling” of the subaltern, as characterised by what Kant deems the public and private spheres of enlightenment

What Is Enlightenment?

The Spectre of Invasion

Conclusion