Abstract
This paper entitled
‘Critical Appreciation on Gyatri Chakravorty Spivak’s ‘Can the Subaltern
Speak?’ attempts to make the critical review of the work of Gyatri Spivak’s
‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ in respect to the postcolonial literary criticism.
It mainly deals with the short historical background of the postcolonial
history glimpsing the concept from the colonization and the imperialism. The
focus is made on the essay that the writer has viewed in criticizing the WEST
view point to the subaltern of India, exemplifying how the subjective hegemony
of the past colonizers still rules the then colonized people, their psychic and
culture. Exemplifying the ‘sati’ system of India, the writer’s perspective to
see the subaltern voice is tried to address in the paper.
Keywords: Subaltern,
colonization, imperialism, sati, hegemony, domination, abolish, speak
Getting Started
The term ‘Subaltern’ in
post colonial theory refers to the people who are of lower classes and the
social groups who are not in the mainstream. That is to say, subaltern people
are the marginalized group of people who are at the margins of the society. The
marginalized exist due to the race, caste, ethnicity, lack of power, etc. To be
very specific, it refers to any person or group of inferior rank and station,
whether because of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or
religion.
The
term subaltern has been an influential since Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci
(1891-1937) used it for the first time while describing “History Told From Below”,
For Gramci, subaltern referred to the social groups who are excluded from a
society’s established structures for political representation, the means by
which people have a voice in their society.
The
terms subaltern and subaltern studies entered the field of
post-colonial studies with the works of the Subaltern Studies Group, who raised
the issues of the marginalized mass rather than the voice of elite, who are the
stake holders of power and create a hegemonic history in the society. Subaltern
Studies Group mainly focused to the subaltern studies of the South Asia
creating a new history in the field of literary theory, which now is the hot
cake of discussion among the literary genres and the literary scholars. In the
1970s, with the advent of the subaltern studies group, the term referred to the
people who were colonized and the victim of imperialism, especially in India
and South Asia. It gave a new perspective of thought that history told from the
viewpoint of the colonized rather than from the perspectives of the colonizers.
The subjective interpretation of the British ruler, and their term used in the
literature, ‘US’ vs ‘THEM’ are the crucial point of attack for the subaltern
literary groups and scholars. The knowledge about the third world, in the
perspectives of the British Colonizers, is tainted and objective, as
interpreted by them, which the subaltern studies group tells a fake and a myth
having no ground at all.
Before
I move to the ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’, by Spivak, let me foreground the
concept of post-colonial theory in literary studies from temporal perspective.
The
modern trend of colonization began in the mid 19th century. However,
after the end of the Second World War, it began to fall down as many colonized
countries revolted against the colonizers and became independent. The term imperialism gives birth to the term
colonization. which is the condition of domination or control of
one country over another country by means of military forces, economic or
cultural aspects. Colonization rooted in the mindset of the elite countries
while they have the imperialistic view towards the weaker nations, from which
they utilizes the resources. The countries like Britain, France, Germany,
Italy, and Spain laid the seeds of imperialism capturing other countries, which
later became the colonizers. The concept of hegemonic nature which the ‘Big and
Powerful’ nations hold on to the small and weak nations on culture, nature,
economy, etc. rooted the seeds of colonization. Focusing on the derivation of Imperialism
Habib (2005) states,
‘The word imperialism derives from the
Latin imperium, which has numerous meanings including power, authority,
command, dominion, realm, and empire. Though
imperialism is usually understood as a strategy whereby a state aims to extend
its control forcibly beyond its own borders over other states and peoples, it should
be remembered that such control is usually not just military but economic and
cultural. (p.737)
The
political imperialism is the state of laden-ing the political ideologies over the
colonized state. The language, cultural values, sovereignty, resources,
literature, history are in the state of transition which toxifies the
originality of that country. Coming to the theoretical and literary part, ‘the post
colonial theory deals with the reading and writing of literature; written in
previously or currently colonized countries, or literature written in
colonizing countries which deals with colonization or colonized peoples’
(Poudel, 2014).
The
post-colonial perspective was generated with the out-throw of the colonizers in
several countries. Powerful imperialistic nations: Britain, France, Germany, Italy,
were out thrown from India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Burma,
the Sudan, Algeria, West Africa, Equatorial Africa, and Indochina (ibid).
Literature and literate criticism arose in Africa, Asia, Latin America ( “tricontinent”
rather than the “third world”), both
during and after the colonial period, which led the foundation stone for the
post-colonial studies (ibid). Postcolonial studies focus on the oppression of
the colonized, which resulted, in 1988, a founding text of post colonial
studies (ibid), ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak laid the foundation in the subaltern studies
and postcolonial literature. In the essay, she mentions, ‘my position is
generally a reactive one. I am viewed by Marxists as too codic, by feminists as
too male identified, by indigenous theorists as too committed to Western
Theory. I am uneasily pleased about this.’ (Spivak, 1988 as cited in Poudel, 2014.)
Talking
about subaltern, Spivak mentions,
. . . subaltern is not just a
classy word for “oppressed”, for [the] other, for somebody who’s not getting a
piece of the pie. . . . In post-colonial terms, everything that has limited or
no access to the cultural imperialism is subaltern — a space of difference.
Now, who would say that’s just the oppressed? The working class is oppressed.
It’s not subaltern. . . . Many people want to claim subalternity. They are the
least interesting and the most dangerous. I mean, just by being a
discriminated-against minority on the university campus; they don't need the
word ‘subaltern’ . . . They should see what the mechanics of the discrimination
are. They’re within the hegemonic discourse, wanting a piece of the pie, and
not being allowed, so let them speak, use the hegemonic discourse. They should
not call themselves subaltern. (Subaltern: Post-colonialism, 2013)
Can the
Subaltern Speak?
In her essay published in 1988, Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak, an Indian born, attacks the hegemonic nature of the British in the
colonized period to the India. She claims that the subjective interpretation
make by the vicarious colonizers regarding the cultural practices of Indian
ethnic and Indian nationalities is the domination which is resulted from the
universal lens that the West sees the third world. The establishment of
cultural hegemony by the west is an attempt to expand their subjective lens and
the universal ways of looking at the people of other countries. The concept she
brings in the essay is the aspects related to the ‘Sati’ system in the Indian
cultural context and the widow suicides, however, her major criticism in the
essay is relatively about the absolute value system that the West has regarding
the culture keeping them in the universal structure and framework.
In her
essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" , she critically views the western
writers from Marx to Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida. The basic claim she makes in an opening
statement of "Can the Subaltern Speak?" is that western
academic thinking is produced in order to support western economical interests.
Spivak holds the belief that language expresses the interests of its producers,
it cannot be free from belief system and interest system of the users. And she
further attacks the western lenses of knowledge system that, westerners use
knowledge as the commodity that serves the economic interest of the west which
is to export to the third world. Attacking on the research system that westerns
do , she reveals that, research is a matter of colonialism. The western lenses
to see the third world as ‘THEM’ and ‘THERE’ is the attitude of imperialism and
seeing themselves as ‘US’ and ‘HERE’ are the matter of colonial perspectives.
Spivaks point to the fact that research
is in a way always colonial, the defining the ‘other’, the ‘over there’
subject as the object of study and as
something that knowledge should be extracted from and brought
back ‘here’. Basically, the notion of color is the output of the western
thought to see the third world. The notion of Woman, black or of color is the
useless signifier that the western perceives for the other people. Focusing on
this point Spivak (1988) mentions, ‘If, however, this formulation is moved from
the first-world context into the postcolonial context, the description ‘black’,
or ‘of color’ loses persuasive significance(p.90)’. This notion of ‘color’ and ‘woman’
is the colonial perspectives to dominate the third world countries by the first
world.
Spivak’s
major point is the concept of ‘Sati’ practice in the Indian culture. The westerners
abolished the system of Sati from the Indian culture, which Spivak sees an
attack on the cultural dimension of west to the third world. In my point of
view, the westerner thought is laden in the cultural practices in the Indian
society, as the subjective ideas of the west to see the third world is
objective. With the cultural hegemony the domination of the westerners can be
identified in the Indian subcontinent and the culture. She sees that the ‘sati’
abolishment has two different cultural, religious, psychological torture that
the women face in the society. She is not given a chance to be ‘sati’ as her
husband died. A part of humanistic thinking may support the system however, it
is more traumatic for a woman to live in the society when her husband dies,
being alone with the torture from the social proposition. Had a woman be given
a change to be sati, she would have achieved the divinity. This power and
divinity achievement is the major part of the ‘satitwo’ to be preserved for a
woman. While telling so, my point of view is, the westerners in the name of
abolishment of ‘sati’ system, show the hegemonic cultural power over the
culture of the Indian woman. Westerns perspectives towards ‘sati’ are the
vicarious interpretation of them which the First world people couldn’t
understand about the third world. The right of woman to be the part of her husband even after the death of her husband is also abolished with
abolishment of the ‘sati’ system.
In
her essay, Spivak narrates a thrilling story of a young woman in India, who
committed suicide due to the unconditional states of affair she has to face in
the society. In this, Spivak mentions, ‘an unemphatic, ad hoc,
subaltern rewriting of the social text of sati-suicide’. The suicidal case of Bhubaneswari is the
concept of muting the subaltern as such.
Finally,
Spivak question with the ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ seems to be a big ‘NO’,
they cannot speak. Because their point of view and their voices are not heard,
as the super ordinate and subordinate in the society is a circular form which
always make one a subaltern in a way or other. Ending up with Spivak’s point,
‘The subaltern cannot speak. There is no virtue in global laundry lists with
‘woman’ as a pious item. Representation has not withered away. The female
intellectual as intellectual has a circumscribed task which she must not disown
with a flourish ’
References:
Habib, M.A.R (2005).Modern literary
criticism and theory: a history. Blackwell publishing:
USA
Poudel, T.R.(2014). Postcolonial
theory: an introduction. [PowerPoints Slides].
Spivak, G.C. (1988). Can the subaltran speak? from C. Nelson and L.
Grossberg (eds.), Marxism
and
the interpretation of culture. Macmillan Education: Basingstoke,, pp 271-313.
Subaltern:
Post-colonialism. ( 2013, November 13). Wikipedia
foundation Inc. retrieved December 25,
2013 from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaltern_%28postcolonialism%29
No comments:
Post a Comment