Can the Subaltern Speak by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

 Can the Subaltern Speak

by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Introduction

"Can the Subaltern Speak?" is an influential essay by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, first published in 1988, that critiques the invisibility and voicelessness of the most marginalized peoples—especially in colonial and postcolonial contexts. As a poststructuralist and postcolonial feminist thinker, Spivak examines how Western intellectuals and institutions often misrepresent or even silence the very people they claim to study or advocate for.

The essay is a cornerstone of subaltern studies, offering deep insights into power, discourse, epistemology, and representation. Its title poses a provocative and complex question that continues to resonate across disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.

Background and Context

The term subaltern comes from Antonio Gramsci, referring to groups outside the hegemonic power structure—those excluded from the dominant political, social, and cultural hierarchies. In the Indian context, subalterns include peasants, tribal populations, lower castes, women, and others whose voices have historically been suppressed.

Spivak responds critically to both Western intellectual traditions (e.g., Foucault, Deleuze) and the Subaltern Studies Group (founded by Ranajit Guha), arguing that attempts to recover or represent the subaltern often reinscribe imperialist structures.

Summary of Key Arguments

1. Critique of Western Intellectuals

Spivak critiques Western thinkers like Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, who argue that marginalized people can speak for themselves without the need for intellectual representation. She asserts that this belief is naive because it ignores the structural conditions of knowledge production. Even when the subaltern appears to speak, their speech is mediated, interpreted, and often distorted by dominant discourses.

Spivak's argument: The subaltern cannot speak in a way that is heard and recognized on their own terms.

2. Double Erasure of the Subaltern

Spivak argues that the subaltern is “doubly silenced”:

• First, by colonial domination, which erases native forms of knowledge and agency.
• Second, by postcolonial intellectuals who try to "give voice" but end up speaking for the subaltern, rather than with them.

This leads to epistemic violence—a term she borrows from Foucault and critiques—where the very systems of knowledge exclude the subaltern’s subjectivity.

3. Case Study: Sati and the Indian Woman

Spivak discusses the controversial colonial abolition of Sati (the practice of widow-burning in India) as a symbolic example. She shows how:

• British colonizers framed themselves as saviours of oppressed women.
• Traditional Hindu patriarchy framed Sati as an act of virtue.
• The actual voice of the woman was lost between these two discourses.

Thus, the subaltern woman is rendered speechless, trapped between imperialism and patriarchy, with no autonomous space to articulate her will. She says, “Her death is interpreted, not understood as self-expression.”

4. The Problem of Representation

Spivak distinguishes between two senses of the term representation:

• Vertreten (to represent politically) – speaking on behalf of someone.
• Darstellen (to depict or describe) – symbolically representing someone.

She argues that when elites attempt to represent the subaltern, they often collapse these two senses, thereby appropriating the voice of the subaltern and misrepresenting their identity. It can be best represented in the following way-

Aspect	Problem
Speaking for	Often replaces the subaltern's own voice.
Re-presentation	Frames the subaltern through dominant perspectives.
Power structures	Silence or distort the subaltern’s voice.
Academic discourse	Assumes neutrality but can reproduce colonial authority.
Ethical concern	Even well-meaning representation may result in appropriation.

Theoretical Foundations

Spivak draws from:

• Poststructuralism (Derrida): to deconstruct binary oppositions and reveal the instability of meaning. She argues that the subaltern’s speech is not just unheard—it is unrepresentable within dominant discourses. Even when the subaltern “speaks,” her words are filtered, reinterpreted, and reshaped by the structures of language and power.
• Marxism: to critique how ideology masks the realities of oppression. She warns against assuming that the subaltern can be authentically represented by elites, even in anti-colonial or Marxist projects. She says that attempts at representation risk replacing subaltern agency with the elite’s own voice.
• Feminism: to highlight how subaltern women face unique forms of silencing such as white men saving brown women from brown men or the saviours assuming a universal female subject erasing the specificity of caste, class and colonial location. She argues for a reflexive, situated feminism that acknowledges privilege, difference, and the impossibility of full representation.
• Deconstruction: to expose how language and discourse shape what can or cannot be said. Spivak critiques Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, particularly their belief that the oppressed can directly speak for themselves without mediation. According to her, they ignore the institutional frameworks that govern speech and intelligibility, and by claiming the oppressed can speak freely, they deny the very mechanisms that silence the subaltern. She says, “The intellectual’s desire to speak for the Other is itself an act of authority.”

Implications

1. Limits of Representation: Spivak warns against assuming that researchers or intellectuals can speak for the marginalized without reinforcing the structures of dominance.
2. Responsibility of Intellectuals: Scholars must be self-reflexive and critically aware of their positionality and the limits of their knowledge.
3. Subaltern as a Position, Not an Identity: The subaltern is not a fixed group but a shifting position within power structures, often so marginalized that their perspective is inaudible to dominant discourse.
4. Ethical Engagement: True engagement with the subaltern requires listening, humility, and the deconstruction of institutional power that filters their voice.

So, Can the Subaltern Speak?

Spivak’s answer is complex:

• No, not in a way that is unmediated, sovereign, or fully understood within dominant frameworks.
• But the goal is not to despair—it is to recognize the conditions of this silencing, and work to create spaces where marginal voices can be heard without being co-opted.

Legacy and Criticism

Influence:

• Inspired postcolonial, feminist, and cultural theorists.
• Sparked debates in anthropology, literature, political theory, and development studies.

Criticism:

• The essay is notoriously difficult to read, laden with dense theory.
• Some argue Spivak is too sceptical about the possibility of subaltern agency.

Yet, it remains foundational for anyone studying postcolonial ethics, representation, and voice.

Conclusion

"Can the Subaltern Speak?" remains a provocative, challenging, and necessary intervention in understanding how power structures operate through discourse. Spivak does not simply argue that the subaltern is voiceless; she shows us how we are often deaf to the subaltern’s voice because we listen through the filters of our own privilege.

To truly “hear” the subaltern, we must dismantle the frameworks that silence them—intellectually, institutionally, and ethically.