Home > 2024 > Yes, the Subaltern Speaks! | Ajay Kumar Mishra
Mainstream, Vol 62 No 30, July 27, 2024
Yes, the Subaltern Speaks! | Ajay Kumar Mishra
Saturday 27 July 2024
#socialtagsIntroduction
My encounter with a subaltern voice comes from an anecdote involving a poor, widowed Dalit woman, approximately 55 years old, mother to four daughters, who arrived barefoot to secure college admission for one of her daughters. Upon receiving admission approval, her eyes gleamed with hope. This subaltern is vocal about her reality and dreams. The realisation of her dreams now hinges on the mainstream’s willingness to address subaltern educational aspirations. In the meantime, the subaltern must choose the correct path to assert their rightful place in a discriminatory society. This is how the subaltern speaks to carve out a path for upward mobility. A silent seeker without the revolutionary bourgeois, a violent seeker in its presence. Thus, the presence or absence of the revolutionary bourgeois dictates the nature of this expression. Yet, the subaltern continues to speak.
This article revisits Spivak’s assertion in her renowned work ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ [1] where she posited that subalterns are unable to speak. According to her, their issues are at best articulated through intellectuals. Contrary to this, the article argues that subalterns, like any other human class, are rational and utilitarian. They do speak, albeit not in the language familiar to the elite bourgeoisie. Furthermore, it is the elite bourgeoisie who have historically silenced and suppressed the voices of the subaltern. The article suggests that subaltern voices inherently exist and assert. Additionally, the progression of human civilisation towards rights-based citizenship and the advancement of science have made the presence of subaltern discourses inevitable, despite being often overlooked and silenced. Furthermore, Spivak, in her article, references Derrida’s ‘The Double Session’ to argue that the roles of dominant indigenous groups and subaltern groups are situational and contextual. A group that is dominant in one context may not be so in another [2]. However, she denies that the voices of the subalterns are equally situational and subjective, influenced by the state and its ideology. For example, the neoliberal state has reduced the space for subalterns, whereas a rights-based state tends to reflect and address subaltern concerns more effectively. Furthermore, Spivak in a separate study has argued that to ignore the potential of the history of, first, conflictual coexistence among subordinate groups and, second, of alternative movements of subaltern theology, it to make subaltern participation in secularism a matter of law enforcement rather than agency, in the active voice. Subaltern is no longer cut off from lines of access to the centre [3]. The article acknowledges that independent subaltern voices are often suppressed to forcibly align them with secular projects, indicating that the subaltern possesses a distinct voice that resonates within elite circles. Despite this, they have demonstrated resilience in the face of contentious coexistence. Furthermore, their evolutionary nature is evidenced by the emergence of alternative subaltern theological movements. It examines the class disparities between subalterns and intellectuals to comprehend how the subaltern articulates their perspectives. In addition, this article does not delve into the political mobilisation of marginalised groups, unlike Marx’s call for a unified working-class uprising or Ambedkar’s encouragement for them to educate, organise, and protest. It argues that the progress of science and civilisation demonstrates the inclusion and integration of marginalised voices. Without this inclusion, such progress is considered illegitimate and ignored by society. For instance, the exclusive use of Sanskrit by certain groups has led to elitism; disconnecting the language from the masses and making it lose its relevance. On the other hand, many local diets and languages have adapted and survived since ancient times.
Where the Subaltern Speaks
The concept of the subaltern is valuable because it helps us avoid the limitations of economic reductionism while still highlighting the critical elements of domination and exploitation. This emerging approach explores the often ignored aspects of popular or subaltern autonomy of action, consciousness, and culture. For instance, anti-colonial, peasant, and labour movements have typically been analysed only in terms of economic pressures and the actions of leaders, who are often portrayed as manipulative, charismatic, or idealistic. [4]
In these movements, the subalterns demonstrated independence by recognising the conflicting stances of the colonial government and the national leaders of the movement. The subaltern study tends to detach itself from the mechanistic and economistic form that narrowly characterises most of the Marxist traditional studies. The word ‘subaltern’ in the title stands for the meaning is ‘of inferior rank’, it will be used in these pages as a name for the general attribute of subordination in South Asian society whether this is expressed in terms of class, caste, age, gender and office or in any other way [5]. The reasonable and rarefied definition of the word subaltern is to be removed from all lines of upward social mobility.
Hegel and Marx have argued for the advancement of the history of the world’s progress through class struggle. Such a model of class struggle was of little relevance to South Asian societies where peasants constituted the vast majority and led the resistance against the Imperial Empire. The subaltern classes refer fundamentally in Gramsci’s words to any “low-rank†person or group of people in a particular society suffering under the hegemonic domination of a ruling elite class that denies them the basic rights of participation in the making of local history and culture as active individuals of the same nation [6]. The subaltern classes by definition are not unified and cannot unite until they can become a “State†: their history, therefore, is intertwined with that of civil society, and thereby with the history of States and groups of States. Hence it is necessary to study: a) the objective formation of the subaltern social groups, by the developments and transformations occurring in the sphere of economic production; their quantitative diffusion and their origins in pre-existing social groups, whose mentality, ideology and aims they conserve for a time; b) their active or passive affiliation to the dominant political formations, their attempts to influence the programmes of these formations in order to press claims of their own, and the consequences of these attempts in determining processes of decomposition, renovation or neo-formation; c) the birth of new parties of the dominant groups, intended to conserve the assent of the subaltern groups and to maintain control over them; d) the formations which the subaltern groups themselves produce, in order to press claims of a limited and partial character; e) those new formations which assert the autonomy of the subaltern groups, but within the old framework; f) those formations which assert the integral autonomy [7]. These points indicate that comprehending the subaltern may not be feasible without acknowledging the autonomy of subaltern politics. Its goal is to impact the state similarly to how dominant parties do.
The subaltern classes require the state to present a united front, thereby not dismantling the concept of the state itself. Additionally, the subalterns rely on the state for the quiet and peaceful resolution of issues. A state endowed with internal sovereignty directs the subaltern causes without the need for rebellion. Conversely, a fragile state under neoliberal capitalism undermines the subaltern cause without inciting revolt. Neoliberals achieve this through the creation of a false sense of supremacy. Nevertheless, subalterns communicate in neoliberalism by signalling their relative deprivation of resources and opportunities. The facts are self-evident; reality ignites ambitions. Hence, subalterns articulate their position amidst the manufactured consent and perceived invulnerability of neoliberalism. The subaltern study is testimony to the perennial importance of the issues made central by the original Subaltern Studies collective that the problem of agency, subject positions and hegemony constitute to the ontological resistance of all varieties of historical determinism, techno-economic or cultural [8]. This is the post-modernist development that points to a drastic movement in the demands of the marginalised groups from “the struggles for recognition as equals†to “the demand for the recognition of difference [9]. This signalled a much-needed shift in epistemology, emphasising the importance of incorporating diverse perspectives into knowledge. These multiple voices were no longer dismissed as mere noise but recognised as the uncomfortable truths frequently side- lined by dominant power structures and the institutions they support.
This article follows the class difference of the subalterns and intellectuals to understand how the subaltern speaks. Proletarians have a class instinct that helps them to class positions. On the contrary, Intellectuals have a petty-bourgeois class instinct that fiercely resists this transition. A proletarian class position is more than a mere proletarian class instinct. The consciousness and practice conform to the objective reality of the proletarian class struggle. Class instinct is subjective and spontaneous. Class position is objective and rational. To arrive at proletarian class positions, the class instinct of the proletarians only needs to be educated; the class instinct of the petty bourgeois and hence intellectuals, has, on the contrary, to be revolutionised [10]. Education and revolution have shaped the rise of subaltern politics and class struggle. Pursuing materialistic desires and the rationality of utility maximisation have impacted these politics. Subalterns aspire to rationalise material possessions like the dominant and hegemonic powers. Morality arises from a person’s intelligent interaction with their environment, thus it can be inferred from their inherent rationality. Given that rationality is a fundamental aspect of human nature, simply reminding an individual of their biological roots can restore their self-belief and reverse any damage they have suffered [11]. The recognition of secular rational morality as a possibility unveils a fresh outlook for the contemporary world. The notions of human dignity, sovereignty, and creativity only gain significance when they stem not from divine decree, but from the individual’s capacity for reason.
Subalterns’ language and Science
Language distinguishes us from other species. It not only helps us with social interactions but also gives meaning and value to our thoughts. As a result, control over language has been a powerful tool for the ruling classes. Noam Chomsky highlights the role of language as a tool of control within liberal capitalist systems. The development and dissemination of ideas demand resources, and while opinions are not tangible goods that can be purchased or sold, their generation often mirrors the production of typical commodities. The proletariat’s acquiescence to their exploitation has to be “manufactured†by influential entities in society by creating “false consciousness† of the supremacy of capitalism, encompassing both the state and corporate media. Chomsky notes, “A privilege of power is the capacity to craft history with the assurance of facing minimal opposition†[12].
In India’s history, Brahmins used language to position themselves as divine intermediaries. For instance, Sanskrit was kept out of reach for the majority of population. This Brahminical dominance was maintained not through overt coercion, but through an intellectual and elite language that resisted the spread of knowledge, even considering the act of listening to the Vedas as impermissible, under the pretext of maintaining purity and impurity. In 1899, Thorstein Veblen wrote “Theory of the Leisure Class,†in which he described the feudal and priestly classes who used their inherited wealth to buy extravagant lifestyles. Capitalism is based on the widespread consumption of goods, while the ultra-wealthy engage in the conspicuous consumption of exclusive items. In India, the elite’s visions of grandeur and display are still influenced by the cultural habits of the late 19th-century leisure classes.
This difference in material wealth is reflected in the pursuit of perfection through language differentiation. The mastery of language is often the domain of those classes or castes that partake in conspicuous leisure. The elite, both in vernacular and English, have set the standards of secularism, yet they remain detached from the caste and class dynamics that shape aspirations, thus limiting its resonance with the subalterns. The distinct profiles of the elite and subaltern have impeded dialogue between them. This material antagonism is mirrored in languages such as Sanskrit and English, where an emphasis on ‘correct’ pronunciation has rendered them the tongues of the elite.Â
Jacques Derrida’s concept of ‘différance’ plays on the words “difference†and “deferment.†It is a characteristic of language where meaning arises from a word’s distinction from others within a system of signs. Simultaneously, meaning is perpetually and indefinitely postponed, always in a state of being erased, and can only be perceived through “aporias,†or impasses in comprehension. It posits that there is no primal meaning or pronunciation, only a continuous articulation of differences that disrupt our existence [13].
Subalterns possess a language that cannot be articulated verbally. They communicate through the language of signals, folk art, and culture. Dominant rationalist utilitarianism emphasises voiced opinions to acknowledge vulnerability. However, it overlooks that the subjugated population has a subdued voice that cannot be expressed in conventional language. This does not mean that the subalterns are silent. History is replete with examples where the language of the subalterns has instigated revolutionary changes. For instance, the French Revolution championed Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; the American Revolution was founded on the principles of “life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of happiness†; and the Indian Revolution was essentially anti-colonial and supported by visions of independent economic development within a secular, democratic, republican, and civil-libertarian political framework- all reflect the aspirations of the subalterns. Indeed, the foundations of these revolutions and movements embody the subalterns’ voices, in contrast to the dominant voices of the ruling powers.
Furthermore, the acceptance of diversity is a fundamental characteristic of science. Consequently, subaltern studies have reinforced the scientific disciplines. Science is generated by and devoted to free inquiry: the idea that any hypothesis, no matter how strange, deserves to be considered on its merits. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavour of science [14]. Science is the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, and applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be [15]. Neglecting to acknowledge the perspectives of marginalised groups hinders the progress of science.
Conclusion
Subalterns are just as rational and materialistic as hegemonic forces, yet they are marginalised through procedural complexities. Their class consciousness and understanding of their societal position are evident. They articulate themselves, not always in a language familiar to the dominant class, but sometimes through the results of socioeconomic progress. The transition from feudalism to modern rights-based negotiations with the state exemplifies the subaltern’s voice. The growing gaps in income, opportunities, and resources symbolise tangible expressions of deprivation, a language through which a rational, material-focused subaltern communicates. Furthermore, the advancement of sciences and human civilisation demonstrates the recognition of subaltern contributions to scientific thought and disciplines.
Nevertheless, the dominant discourse, which favours a multitude of voices, fails to acknowledge these subaltern expressions. It seeks precise pronunciation and vocabulary, which, according to Derrida’s principle of ‘différance,’ generates an unnecessary cacophony of pronunciations, thus obscuring the argument’s true meaning. Dominant groups have wielded their control over language to shape history, often encountering little resistance. Yet, verbal language is not the sole method of communication. Indeed, the very condition of being subalterns conveys the relative lack of resources, opportunities, and experiences of subjugation. This speaks the language of the subaltern.
(Author: Dr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Samastipur College, Samastipur, L N Mithila University, Darbhanga, Bihar)
[1] Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988), “Can the Subaltern Speak?†[online: Web]. URL. (99+) Spivak Gayatri Can the Subaltern Speak | Abdel Cavanino - Academia.edu
[2] Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988), “Can the Subaltern Speak?†(op. cit. p. 79).
[3] Spivak, Gayatri Chkarvorty (2015). The New Subaltern: A Silent Interview in Mapping Subaltern Studies and The Postcolonial (eds.), p. 326, Rawat Publications: Jaipur.
[4] Sarkar, Sumit (2015). The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies(op. cit. pp. 301-02)
[5] Guha, Ranajit (2015). On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India (op. cit. p.2)
[6] Louai, El Habib (2011), “Retracing the concept of the subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak: Historical developments and new applications†, African Journal of History and Culture (AJHC) Vol. 4(1), p. 5.
[7] Gramsci, Antonio (1971). Prison Notebooks, (ed. and trans. by Hoare and Smith), Lawrence & Wishart: London, p. 202.
[8] Chaturvedi, Vinayak (2015). Introduction. Mapping Subaltern Studies and The Postcolonial, (op. cit. p. xiii).
[9] Pandey, Gyanendra (2006), “The Subaltern as Subaltern Citizen.† Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 41, no. 46, 2006, pp. 4735–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4418914. Accessed 26 May 2023.
[10] Althusser (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. trans. By Ben Brewster, Monthly Review Press: New York & London, pp. 12-13.
[11] Roy, MN (1952). Reason, Romanticism and Revolution. Vol. 1. Renaissance Publishers Ltd.: Calcutta.
[12] Chomsky (2004).Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. P. 167, New York: Owl Books.
[13] Mambrol, Nasrullah (2016), Derrida’s Concept of Difference. [online: web]. Accessed on May 28, 2024, URL. Derrida’s Concept of Differance – Literary Theory and Criticism (literariness.org).
[14] Sagan, Carl (1980). Cosmos.The Random House Publishing Group: New York, p. 98.
[15] Sagan, Carl (1980). (op. cit. 317).