Unless otherwise specified, all translations from Chinese are mine.
1 I credit this insight to my reading of Dipesh Chakrabarty’s important essay ‘‘The Condi-
tion for Knowledge of Working Class Conditions,’’ in Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Cha-
ravorty Spivak, eds., Selected Subaltern Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988),
2 Joan Wallach Scott, Only Paradoxes to O√er: French Feminists and the Rights of Man (Cam-
bridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1996).
3 Andrew Barshay, ‘‘Toward a History of the Social Sciences in Japan,’’ positions: east asia
cultures critique 4, no. 2 (1996): 217–52.
4 Nancy Friday, The Power of Beauty (New York: Harper Collins, 1996). See also Randy
Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion
(Cambridge, ma: mit Press, 2000); Erica Goode, ‘‘Human Nature: Born or Made?
Evolutionary Theorists Provoke an Uproar,’’ New York Times, Science Times, 14 March
2000: d1, d9; Robert J. C. Young, Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race (New
York: Routledge, 1995). Francis Fukuyama has hinted that eugenics will continue to play
a central role in theoretical work in the near future. See his ‘‘Biotechnology and the
Future of Politics,’’ Daily Yomiuri, 5 March 2001: d6.
5 An exciting discussion of the relationship of colonial and revolutionary modernities
appears in Lin Chun, ‘‘The Transformation of Chinese Socialism: An Interpretation,’’
unpublished manuscript, 2002.
Ziˇ zek, ‘‘Psychoanalysis in Post-Marxism: The Case of Alain Badiou,’’ in South
Atlantic Quarterly, 97:2 (spring) 1998, 239–40: ‘‘Advocates of ‘‘Anti-essentialist’’ identity
politics . . . tend to stress that there is no ‘women in general,’ only White middle-class
women, Black single mothers, lesbians and so on and so forth. . . . The problem for
philosophical thought resides precisely in how the universality of ‘woman’ emerges
from this ‘infinite’ multiple, a problem that also enables one to rehabilitate the Hegelian
distinction between bad (‘spurious’) and true infinity: the first refers to the common-
sense infinite complexity, while the second concerns the infinity of an Event which
transcends, precisely, the ‘infinite complexity’ of its context. A homogolous distinction
can be drawn between historicism and historicity proper: historicism refers to the set of
circumstances (economic, political, cultural, etc.) whose complex interactions allow us