Can the Subaltern Speak?

Abstract

Some of the most radical criticism coming out of the West today is the result of an interested desire to conserve the subject of the West, or the West as Subject. The theory of pluralized 'subject-effects' gives an illusion of undermining subjective sovereignty while often providing a cover for this subject of knowledge. Although the history of Europe as Subject is narrativized by the law, political economy and ideology of the West, this concealed Subject pretends it has 'no geo-political determinations'. The much-publicized critique of the sovereign subject thus actually inaugurates a Subject. I will argue for this conclusion by considering a text by two great practitioners of the critique: 'Intellectuals and power: a conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze'. 1 I have chosen this friendly exchange between two activist philosophers of history because it undoes the opposition between authoritative theoretical production and the unguarded practice of conversation, enabling one to glimpse the track of ideology. The participants in this conversation emphasize the most important contributions of French poststructuralist theory: brst, that the networks of power/desire/interest are so heterogeneous, that their reduction to a coherent narrative is counterproductive-a persistent critique is needed; and second, that intellectuals must attempt to disclose and know the discourse of society's Other. Yet the two systematically ignore the question of ideology and their own implication in intellectual and economic history. Although one of its chief presuppositions is the critique of the sovereign subject, the conversation between Foucault and Deleuze is framed by two monolithic and From C.

Reflecting on the 'International Group Working Experience': a study of two MBA programmes

“…Analysis of the group work experience discussed above surfaced elements of sidelining and the inability of some to participate fully and, on the other hand, the over-dominance of other students. In postcolonial terms, such experiences could be framed by recourse to the concept of 'subalterns' (Gramsci 1992;Spivak 1988). These are subordinate groups who lack the organisation and voice of those in power and who are marginalised and effectively silenced.…”

“…Parallels could be drawn with group work situations where group work participants who do not behave in accordance with the unwritten rules are effectively sidelined and marginalised and also effectively 'othered'. The concept of 'othering' is used by postcolonial writers (Said 1978, Spivak 1988 to criticise the past western imperial tendency to universalise people from other races in the former's own terms -a colonising tool to disempower and colonise certain people. This is a means of affirming one's own positive identity by stigmatising an 'other.'…”

Including Hard-to-Access Populations Using Mobile Phone Surveys and Participatory Indicators

“…Our research project reflects a trend towards bottom-up forms of research that, it is hoped, may be able to access the apparently 'authentic' voice of communities under research (Millar 2014;Herring 2008). It is aware, however, of the pitfalls of 'romanticizing' all things local (Briggs 2005, Richmond 2009) and of the dangers of attempting to speak for the subaltern (Spivak 1988). Qualitative research on peace and conflict increasingly discusses the positionality of the researchers, and shows an awareness of the responsibilities that researchers hold to the researched (Sabaratnum 2013;Chabal 2012;Fischer 2007).…”

Ngapartji Ngapartji: In turn, in turn: Ego-histoire, Europe and Indigenous Australia

“…In the broader project of post-colonial studies the importance of the questions I asked of my colleagues at the NAISA conference is underlined in the work of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Spivak 1988(Spivak , 1999. Spivak has placed questions of representation at the centre of her scholarly engagements with the colonial and post-colonial.…”