Can the Subaltern Speak? / Gayatri Chakraborty Spivak/ 1988

Spivak begins the essay by critiquing Foucault and Deluze who are inattentive to their own position of power in narrating a third world subject, and are ignorant of the implications of transplanting western ideological theories into colonial discourse of oppression. In a debate, Foucault and Deluze emphasized on the "counter-productiveness to reduce the networks of power/desire/interest because they are so heterogeneous and the need for intellectuals to disclose their knowledge and know the discourse of the Other." Yet, she writes, "they systematically ignore the question of ideology and their own implication in intellectual and economic history" (66). She argues that the representation of 'subalterns' by western intellectuals is one that they have unconsciously created themselves by falsely pretending to be "transparent" (The example given is of Foucault where in an interview at an "unguarded moment" he gives away the pretense). She argues the knowledge production in the west is also a commodity having deep roots in social, economic and institutional capital. Spivak questions the use of the terms, 'Maoist' and ' the worker's struggle' by French theorists in their discourse of revolution. She criticizes the usage of these essentialist terms as they assume a cultural solidarity for a heterogeneous group. Foucault and Deluze, she argues, represent the Other through their own cultural system. The second part of the essay clarifies the meaning of Subject and Subjectivity in Subaltern studies as compared to the Marxist Subject. She argues that colonial Subject is a heterogenous entity and cannot be understood as an undivided consciousness striving for the same things. She writes, "My view is that radical practice should attend to this double session of representations rather than reintroduce the individual subject through totalizing concepts of power and desire" (74).

In arguing against Foucault's narrative of the epistemic violence as being located in late 18th century Europe, Spivak uses examples from 17th and 18th century colonial India. First, she examines the British reformation of traditional legal system in India that was based on Hindu Dharmashastra that used Shruti, Smruti, Shastra, Vyavahara as four tools in settling disputes. The codification of these traditional laws in accordance to British value system is symbolic of the epistemic violence by the colonizers. Accompanied by suppression of Sanskrit in the overhauled educational system, a version of history was gradually established where Brahmins were shown to have same intentions as the British in writing down the laws in 'high culture' Sanskrit and making them rigid and inaccessible to lower castes, peasants, and tribals. Here, she argues, that while Foucault and Deluze propose that the 'oppressed' in the first-world can speak or revolt, they do because they have access to socialized capital (Foucault) and know their conditions, whereas the subaltern of the third world cannot.

The final part of the essay uses the example of Sati practice in 18th century India and the suicide of an Indian woman to further explain the notions of epistemic violence in the colonized nation. Indian women were initially 'spoken for' by the learned Brahmins (men) who inscribed the importance of Sati (widows committing suicide by jumping into the burning pyre of their dead husband), and indirectly controlled what an 'ideal Hindu woman', 'a good wife' should and shouldn't do. Here, even though several Indian narratives portray women as voluntarily wanting to commit suicide post their husband's death, one should be aware that these women were a part of intrinsic belief system that was circulated through generations by power yielding Brahmins (brown men). As Spivak's often misunderstood and controversial sentence - "White men saving brown women from brown men" - suggests, at the end of 18th century, British reformers noticing this barbaric practice banned the practice of Sati, much to the anger of brown men. The larger point of this example is to showcase that women who belonged to the lowest strata of the subaltern, had absolutely no agency. First, they were ‘spoken for’ by the Brahmins, and then by the British. They could not speak. Additionally, as the suicide of Bhuvaneswari indicates, despite trying to displace the sanctioned hegemonic narrative, the subaltern as female cannot even be heard or read.


Paragraph Summary:
Spivak's question is not one that looks for a binary answer, but it rather is an enquiry into the agency of a subaltern and whether it is possible for a subaltern to speak. Even as she answers her own question negatively, she presents a four-fold argument on the nature and perceptions of the colonial Subaltern by the western world, by calling intellectual behemoths as her witnesses.
a) Western theorists impose their own value system when examining the Subaltern. b) The Subject cannot be described in Marxian terms as an undivided personality. It has to be understood as "divided and dislocated subjects whose parts are not continuous or coherent with each other". c) Earlier explorations of the Subaltern studies Collective examined the colonial Subject as a coherent whole and suppressed the heterogeneity of the subaltern consciousness. She cautions the subaltern theorists that the voice of the Subaltern is being heard through a group of intellectuals, which can seem like French theorists' who speak for oppressed groups using essentialist terms of 'workers' or 'maoists'. d) Using the example of British codifying Hindu laws and legal system, she argues that "epistemic violence" -- a complete overhaul of the episteme -- is not located in Europe at the end of 18th century as Foucault identifies, but rather is present in the epistemic violence carried out by Europe in the nations it colonized. 

The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories / Partha Chatterjee /1993

Partha Chatterji challenges the euro centric model of nationalism and argues that nationalism in the colony preceded the political claims and stemmed from 19th century projects of cultural differentiation and identity formation.

Chapter 1 "Whose Imagined Communities" objects to Anderson's argument that historical experience of nationalism in Europe and America had supplied the template for nationalism (as a modular form) to the colonized world. The central argument of the book, and the primary objection to Anderson's theory is summarized by his asking if the rest of the world has to choose their imagined communities based on the modular forms created and presented to them by Europe and the Americas, "what do they have left to imagine?". He asks, whether history has decreed the postcolonial world to be perpetual consumers of modernity, and whether even the imaginations of the postcolonial world should remain colonized.  Chatterji breaks from popular nationalist epistemology by arguing that nationalism should not be understood as a political movement. He argues that anti-colonial nationalism has to be thought of as the true beginning of nationalism in the colony. He suggests two domains exist in anti-colonial nationalism -- the material and the spiritual. The material domain was where the west has superiority and the East wanted to imitate it, and the spiritual was the inner cultural identity which was unique to the colony. Since the natives objected to the colonizers interfering and changing this spiritual side as early as 1870's in India, he argues that nationalism was already present then. Here, he suggests that by protecting its inner domain the nation was already being sovereign even as the state was colonized.
He discusses four areas in the spiritual domain that transformed nationalism by inserting it into the public sphere and were constituted by the processes and forms of modern colonial state. Agreeing with Anderson that print-capitalism was the key factor in spread of nationalism, Chatterjee discusses the use of Bengali language by Bengali elites as a tool for asserting the inner domain of nationalism, adapting of Sanskrit plays to popularize a new art form - bengali drama, the creation of new secondary schools where bengali was generalized and normalized the native language, and finally the unique 'modernization' of Indian women where they worked in the public sphere but had to display the sings of national tradition making her different from 'modern western women'.

In arguing that nationalism in India was not based no "derivation" but on"differentiation" he presents examples in chapter 2- 11 to showcase how the nationalist project strived to maintain sovereignty over the inner spiritual realm and keep the colonizers from conquering it. While it was agreed that the West had superiority in the material realm, and East could imitate it, they strived to keep western influences out of the spiritual realm.

Chapter 2 deals with the making of colonial state and the various instances where the colonial"other" was created. Colonial difference -- 'of representing the "other" as inferior and radically different -- was used to justify colonial rule.
Chapter 3 discusses the creation a new sphere in the domain of private -- the new strata  "middle class" -which would both be subordinate to an elite class, and dominate over lower-castes. Chatterjee presents the 'middle-class' as agents of nationalist modernity but carrying unique markers of cultural differences to distinguish them from the West - "The culture of middle-class... is in its overwhelming cultural content, Hindu."
Chapters 4 and 5 traces the nationalist project of writing India's history as a cohesive 'classical' one to imagine/create a central identity and to justify the demands of independence. He writes, nationalist history has a clear agenda and was thought out to have a clear beginning and an end -- begins with the subcontinent's centuries of glorious past and ends with its decline due to the Islamic invasion. He notes the exclusion of several people in this 'classical history' - women, lower-castes, Jains, Buddhists etc.. and questions, if there can ever be one single pre-history of India that could be considered a "national history"?
Chapters 6 and 7 presents the "women's question". Being a central issue in the controversial reformation of mid 19th century, the nationalists sought to rationalize and reform the nature of women in their inner domain without the interference of the colonizers. Evan as the "new woman" differed from 'common' woman with her education and bourgeois virtues, she still carried "signs" of her spiritual domain in her dress, social demeanor, religiosity etc.. thus maintaining a clear distinction from "western modern woman." He argues women themselves wrote against traditional gender biases in their memoirs and family histories even though are rare to be seen in public archives.
Chapter 8 draws from the arguments of Subaltern scholars and focusses on the peasant rebellion and struggles in the mid 19th century, and the role of peasants in the formation of a distinct nationalism through folklore, puzzles, and songs which was markedly different from both Indian bourgeois and western politics. Referring Ranajit Guha's work on peasant insurgency, Chatterjee argues that understanding the reasons how peasants reacted radically in their opposition of the colonial compared to their "educated" compatriots tells an alternative history of India that is fundamental to understand arising consciousness in a colonial state.
Chapter 9 discusses the nature of caste in relation to the identity of lower castes, and the various ways in which caste was challenged in both the private and public realms in the colonial state.
The two final chapters bring back the discussion to the ideas of 'community'. Chapter 10 is a discussion of Capitalism, national planning, and the place of communities in making of a nation. He suggests the changes in capitalism in modern nation-state of India followed the Gramscian passive revolution model where bourgeois hegemony does not get established in the 'classical way.

Comments: Following Chatterjee's argument that there cannot be a single modular form of nationalism, but every colony imagines/creates its own version of nationalism that stems from factors distinct to the region, it is surprising that Chatterjee presents all his examples from Bengal in his discussion of "Indian" nationalism. Can Bengal be a proxy for India? How was the women's question resolved in Chennai? Did northwestern India find a common language amidst all of its different dialects?