Can the Subaltern Speak
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
- Limits of Representation: Spivak warns against assuming that
researchers or intellectuals can speak for the marginalized without reinforcing
the structures of dominance.
- Responsibility of
Intellectuals: Scholars must be self-reflexive
and critically aware of their positionality and the limits of their
knowledge.
- 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.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment