Week 2:
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak
“Can the Subaltern Speak?”
Joan W. Scott
“The Evidence of Experience”
Beyond Postcolonialism
• Spivak is considered a leading postcolonial critic but
her critical work is difficult to define because Spivak
constantly revises her arguments to refuse
identification by any single category or label such as
‘postcolonial’, ‘feminist’ or ‘Marxist’.
• She is committed to re-thinking and revising theoretical
concepts and approaches in response to social,
economic and political changes in the contemporary
world order.
• She embodies what it means to be a philosopher,
because there’s always new interpretations and new
modes of reviving/revising schools of thought.
Deconstruction
• Spivak has often been criticised for drawing on the western
post-structuralist theory of Jacques Derrida, Michel
Foucault and Jacques Lacan.
• This criticism is based on the assumption that
poststructuralist theory is a product of European
philosophy and culture and is therefore inadequate to
criticise the cultural, social and economic legacies of
European colonialism.
• For Spivak, the idea of an indigenous theory
uncontaminated by the legacy of nineteenth-century
colonialism is unrealistic.
• Derrida, Foucault and Lacan provide Spivak with a
conceptual apparatus that enables her to question the
cultural and philosophical foundations of western
imperialism.
Post Structuralism
• The very existence of this body of knowledge
is debated.
– Some define post structuralism as a theory that is
concerned with the relationship between human
beings and the world and the practice of
reproducing meaning.
– Others argue there is no clear definition.
• Spivak sets her argument in opposition to
French poststructuralists
Post Structuralism
• Some argue that post structuralism is a
product of a single historical moment – the
Algerian war of independence (1954-1962).
– The Algerian war culminated in Algeria gaining
independence from France. It is also considered to
mark the beginning of decolonisation.
• Post structuralism sought to explain successful
decolonisation.
Marxist Conception
• Hegemonic power (HP) – want to increase their
influence and power and decrease resistance.
• HP is challenged by a well informed
population/proletariat who realise they are being
exploited and so they create an opposition.
• HP want to create a block between themselves
and the proletariat so the proletariat remain
unaware of the intention to create a system of
delusion (otherwise known as ideology).
Marxist Conception
• Ideology controls the population by pacifying and
making them docile, creating a false
consciousness.
• HP controls the thoughts and behaviour of the
proletariat to decrease the likelihood of a revolt
and create a false consciousness and a sort of
akrasia.
• Class consciousness is a result of material
circumstances.
• Can you think of any examples of ideologies that
control our thoughts or behaviour?
Ideology for Marx
• Capitalism must construct a system of
indoctrination to defend property.
• For example: Marx would argue that we are
deluded into believing that the more we work the
more value we will accumulate.
• HP don’t have to work as hard, they rely on
investment – and the more the proletariat work
the more money HP makes.
• HP constructs capital as inevitable and a force of
nature.
• Any alternative to capital is degraded.
Akrasia
• Akrasia put simply is a weakness of will.
• An akratic individual has a desire but this never
manifests in action.
• For example: Behaviour = Intent + Action
• To understand behaviour we need to analyse intent
and action. The problem is we can observe action but
intent is subjective and private.
• An akratic individual can be misled by their true intent.
• They might have an unknown true intent, their
functional intent becomes unrecognisable.
Akrasia
• Essentially is self deception. A disassociation
between intent and action, ie: the intent doesn’t
correspond to the action.
• For example: Say I’m a smoker. I intend to stop
smoking, but I continue to smoke because my
unknown functional intent is actually that I do
not want to quit. Therefore I am an akratic
individual.
• Have you ever been an akratic individual?
• How does this relate to Marxist theory?
Akrasia and Marx
• My intent is to save my money so that I might improve
my lifestyle and position in life.
• My action is to go out every Friday and Saturday and
relax with friends spending lots of money drinking in
clubs.
• My functional intent is to have fun and let off steam at
the weekend, making the week more bearable.
• I am deceiving myself because I never manage to
obtain my true goal of financial betterment. I seek a
short term solution instead of striving for what I really
want.
How does this relate to
Post structuralism?
Post Structuralists Criticise Marxism
• Post structuralist (PS) reject false consciousness – they
argue:
1. If every member of the proletariat is misinformed it’s
unhelpful if there is no consciousness that exists that
is not distorted. We cannot make sense of false
consciousness if everyone is deceived.
2. There is no such thing as a group/collective
consciousness - it should be replaced with more
useful analysis of culture using discourse or
background.
3. Global consciousness is even more impossible.
Rejecting False Consciousness
• PS argue that ideology doesn’t influence or
coerce the population. The system is secured
by CONSENT. The proletariat consent to
dominance and being governed if their basic
needs are being met.
• The oppressed consent to passivity to
preserve the structure of power. PS do not
believe there is any deception.
DIVERGENT
• It is inevitable that someone will refuse to consent and
become a non-conformist or a trouble maker.
• A non-conformist is a necessary by-product of the
system because they will commit actions against the
state - “crimes” and will become “criminals”.
• Power needs non-conformists so they have people to
punish and demonise.
• HP can remove the non-conformists and this helps to
maintain pacification.
• Hence some of the oppressed have been called to play
the role of criminals in order to keep the rest of the
oppressed in their place.
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6HHCxLZftQ
Why is this relevant to Spivak?
Marxism and Spivak
• Spivak sets her argument in opposition to
French post structuralists (she doesn’t believe
people consent to oppression). Instead she
identified the subaltern population within a
Marxist framework (coerced and deceived into
oppression).
• What is a potential problem with Spivak and
her use of Marxist theory?
Marxism and Eurocentrism
• Marxism has been criticised for being exclusively
Eurocentric because gender and class cannot be
satisfactorily subordinated to class.
• Marxism only addresses the concerns of the
working class because they believe they are the
most subordinate.
• However, Spivak uses the Marxist framework to
analyse the subaltern. She revises and revives the
theory, applying it to the subaltern.
Post Structuralism V.S Marxism
Which school of thought is more realistic?
Marxism (coercion and deception to oppress)
or
Post structuralists (people consent to oppression)
Why do you think Spivak disagrees with
Post structuralists?
Is it because the subaltern do not have access to HP,
there is no communication therefore they could not
consent because they are not even aware of the
power that oppresses them?
Key terms to enable understanding of
the
essay:
1. Hegemony: hegemonic power or dominant discourse is predominantly
2.
3.
4.
that of a white male.
Equivocation: Spivak is suggesting that we have to be sure in the
theoretical rigour of our use of terms. We need to avoid using terms that
have multiple meanings. She wants us to avoid equivocation.
Subaltern: The individual that is oppressed has limited hegemonic power
or accessibility to the notion of hegemony/power. Through historical
narrative the oppressed do not have access to orthodoxy (those in control
of hegemony). The oppressed can consolidate power to force orthodoxy
to ensure the revision of history. Revisionist history is when an oppressed
person is given the opportunity to be rewritten into history. The subaltern
lack recognition and cannot contribute to revisionist history. The
subaltern and oppressed are not interchangeable terms. All subaltern
are oppressed but not all oppressed are subaltern.
Subjectivity: Foucault and Deleuze ascribe to the poststructuralist
traditional model that believe desire, interest, and intent are all united
and all the same in the formation of the subject. They conflate the terms.
However, Spivak argues for Akrasia and Marxist subjectivity, which is the
antithesis of Foucault and Deleuze. She believes that desires and interests
are not the same. She suggests subjectivity doesn’t come from unity but
dislocation.
Spivak argues:
1. The subaltern is oppressed.
2. The subject is divided. Subjectivity arises as a
consequence of dislocation. Any attempt to make
sense of contradiction and dislocation homogenises
the subject.
3. There are two forms of representation.
A. Representation (Vertreten) - political representation from
within the hegemonic power.
B. Representation (Darstellen) - re-presentation something that has been presented will be re-presented
(self-re-presentation). Transforming the nature of
representation. (84)
4. We need try to clarify our use of terms to avoid
equivocation and re-present concepts.
What is guiding Spivak in her attempt
to shed light on the subaltern?
1.
2.
3.
4.
The implementation of the law as a means of “epistemic violence”
(control).
The creation of a class of “interpreters” between the colonised
and coloniser. “Interpreters” are employed to infuse and
indoctrinate the colonised with Western ideologies. They serve as
“sub oppressors”, who pacify the colonised by educational
indoctrination of the oppressed.
For Foucault and Deleuze the sub-proletariat can speak for
themselves, and the subaltern do have a voice and access to
hegemonic voices of power. Spivak disagrees with this.
Spivak rejects the possibility of this and provides an example of a
subaltern that does not have a voice. She is not suggesting we
should abstain from representing the subaltern. She wants to
show us that there can be a complete loss of voice. The example
she gives examines the practice of “Sati” (when a woman
sacrifices herself after her husband’s death by throwing herself on
his funeral pyre).
Questions to discuss:
1. Spivak argues “white men are saving brown women from
brown men” (92). Why might it be problematic for a
woman to be “an object of protection from her own kind”
(94)?
2. What is the significance of Spivak’s closing assertion: “The
subaltern cannot speak” and what does she suggest we
should do?
3. Examine Spivak’s analysis of the British codification of
Hindu Law focusing on her investigation of “Sati”.
4. What is Spivak’s opinion of the creation of a class of
“interpreters”?
5. Explain why for Spivak to be a “‘woman’ seems most
problematic” (90)?
Joan W. Scott
“The Evidence of Experience”
• Scott argues that “Seeing is the origin of
knowing. Writing is reproduction,
transmission – the communication of
knowledge gained through (visual, visceral)
experience. This kind of communication has
long been the mission of historians
documenting the lives of those omitted or
overlooked in accounts of the past” (776).
What is the problem with this production of
historical knowledge according to Scott?
Experience as Evidence
• Scott goes on to explain that “”experience,” whether
conceived as internal of external, subjective or
objective, establishes the prior existence of individuals.
When it is defined as internal, it is an expression of an
individual’s being or consciousness; when external, it is
the material on which consciousness then acts. […] It
operates within an ideological construction that not
only makes individuals the starting point of knowledge,
but that also naturalizes categories such as man,
woman, black , white, heterosexual, and homosexual
by treating them as given characteristics of
individuals.” (782) What does Scott suggest is the
problem with experience as evidence?
Changing Focus
• In her conclusion Scott contends we need to change “the
focus and the philosophy of our history” (796), she poses a
series of questions “How have categories of representation
and analysis – such as class, race, gender, relations of
production, biology, identity, subjectivity, agency,
experience, even culture – achieved their foundational
status? What have been the effects of their articulations?
What does it mean for historians to study the past in terms
of these categories and for individuals to think of
themselves in these terms? What is the relationship
between the salience of such categories in our time and
their existences in the past?” (796) How would you respond
to these questions? What does Scott want us to do?
Thesis?
• How would you explain Scott’s central
argument/thesis in your own words? Is there a
quote from the essay which sums up her
argument neatly?
• Can you think of any other reasons that Scott
gives to explain the problem of experience?
Spivak
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHH4AL
RFHw
• 9.29-20mins
Extra discussion questions:
1. Why is Marx relevant to Spivak?
2. What is the tension in her writing – how does
she critique representation and subaltern
studies?
3. How does Spivak counter the problem of
speaking for subaltern woman?
Letitia Elizabeth Landon
(1802 – 1838)
A Suttee
• What is your impression of the poem?
• In light of Spivak, does this influence your
reading of the poem?
• How do you think Spivak might respond to this
poem?
Plenary
• Can you relate Spivak/Scott to any of the
literature we have read?