1) While there are number of similarities between postcolonialism and postmodernism; there are also

certain differences which needs to be reiterated in this discussion.

 particularly in the way in which identity is being conceived and being foregrounded

 why postcolonialism asserts and affirms a denied or an alienated subjectivity while postmodernism on
the other hand challenges coherent autonomous subject.

2) In this essay, we find that Spivak is talking about certain constructions of identity which are crucial in
the postcolonial subjectivity.

3) And how through the framework of postmodernism one could one could critic the various contexts
which are available particularly in the form of subaltern consciousness. ***

4) And this also brings us to the question; if we talk about the global and the local in the context
postcolonialism as well as postmodernism.

 How do we then think about the local and the marginalized?

 Is there any way of talking about the marginalized other than foregrounding them as silence subaltern.
(as silent subaltern?)

5) This essay can subaltern speak has been at the heart of controversy for a long time.
And this essay asks a number of question related to the agency and power which are part of a subaltern
subjectivities.

6) Any discussion which tries to bring to get the postcolonialism and postmodernism is also float with the
number of challenges. And one of them being the precision that

 postmodernism as politically ambivalent and in addition to this it is also important to notice the fact that

 the postcolonial is as implicated in that which it challenges as is the post modern

 For example, both of them they question, they tell into the negate and reject the metanarratives of
European enlightenment - colonialism and modernity.

7) And we also find that the definitions of postcolonialism and the definition of the postmodernism are also
inherent in the ways in which we define colonialism and modernity.

 And this is something that we were discussing right from the beginning of this course; how there could
be various postmodernism depending on the kind of modernism that one subscribe to in the same way
there could be different versions of postcolonialities depending on how we tend to approach colonialism.

This brings us to more focused discussion of Spivak essay Can the subaltern speak.

1) Spivak is celebrated figure in postcolonial studies. She also a rose to fame with the translation of
Derrida’s ‘Of Grammatology’ and she has also written a wonderful preface to the book.

2) She has been described as a ‘third world women’ ‘hyphenated American’ as a ‘Bengali exile’ and she
also talks about herself as a ‘practical deconstructionist feminist Marxist.’

3) So, she perhaps is a right kind of person to approach postcoloniality from various points of
view and for the same reason it is only appropriate that we include Spivak’s essay in this in this discussion
where we locate the intersections between postcolonialism and postmodernism.

4) This essay though published in 1988 is based on a lecture which Spivak gave in 1983. The central thesis
of the essay is that :--

 The subaltern cannot represent themselves. They must be spoken for.

5) It also address that problems of representation in historiography and in that sense it could be
also seen as part of the lot of work which was published by subaltern study historians.

6) And it is also talks about the various problems of the subalternity voicing and death; and
these are also certain a ways in which she accesses this the problems which are at the
heart of the subaltern subjectivities.

7) And since the publication of this essay 1988; this has been revered, reviled, misread and
misappropriated in different context and work has also been cited invoked imitated and
critique and this could be easily considered as the best known and the most controversial
of a Spivak’s works.

BACKGROUND

8) And this is a background to the writing of this essay she place this essay in the context of -

 the third world background; wherein intellectuals are searching for individual cultural
national identity.

In that sense I also encourage you to see the connections between Appiah and Spivak
where Appiah is also extremely critical of the certain ways in which African postcolonialism had been engaging
with idea and the concept of postcoloniality from a predominantly western/west centric view.

 What makes Spivak’s very different and closer to the post modernist approach is her being heavily
influenced by deconstruction.

9) She seeks to SUBVERT the binary opposition between subjects and object, self and the Other, the
occident and the orient; the centre and the marginal and the majority and the minority. And this
subversion of the binary opposites and this rejection of this binary opposites is also at the heart of most
of postmodernist poststructuralist debates.

If we analyse can the subaltern speak in detail we also notice that :--

 Spivak’s central motif is deconstructive, her being heavily influenced by Derrida.

10) ‘Subaltern’ is also a word what she borrowed from Antonio Gramsci’s Idea of subalternity.

11) And in that sense we also see a very powerful influence of the Marxist historians, she also uses this
essay to introspect her own subject position as an Indian intellectual.

Thus in multiple ways this essay could be seen as an extremely critical intervention which questioned and
changed the paradigms of all kinds of discussion related to postcoloniality as well as postmodernism.

12) the text introduces questions of gender and sexual difference.

 13) It analysis various forms of presentation and also offers a profound critique of both
subaltern history and radical western philosophy.

14) While she is conscious about the ways in which western philosophy and western narratives inform the
construction of the subaltern history, she also alerts to the fact that there is a way in which the subaltern
history and subaltern subjectivities have been subjugated under the force of the western philosophical
and critical metanarratives.

And she also refers to the manner in which western cultures investigate other cultures.

15) She draws our attention particularly to THE SATI DEBATE WHICH WAS PART OF THE
COLONIAL HISTORY and she also highlights the various ways in which the debate has been staged in
particular ways to deny any sense of agency, voice or power to the subaltern.

¥ POSTMODERN FEMINISM

And it is a very much possible see Spivak as a postmodern feminist and can the subaltern
speak as a work of postmodern feminism.

16) Spivak suggest in this work that it is impossible for us to recover the voice of the subaltern or oppressed
subject.

17) And this she argues by way of the fact that natives are divided by differences of gender, class, caste and
other hierarchies.

And these set of hierarchies are also certain kind of hierarchies with which the western historical framework,
western sociological works are not very familiar with.

18) So, it is just gap it is this absence of a certain dialogue that she tries to problematize in her discussion
during this essay.

19) And she also takes this issue of reading resistance and she argues this takes on a specific kind of
complexity when we deal with text by Indian women.

Here Spivak comes across as a feminist who is willing to critique not just the tenets of a postcolonialism and
postmodernism, but also the tenets on which feminist historiography itself has been built.

20) And she uses certain entry points which is - a Sati debate or another private story that she
uses towards the end of her essay that of a young woman named Bhubaneswari Bhaduri
and she uses these entry points to talk about these various metanarrative in a critical fashion.

¥ She USES DECONSTRUCTION to make her arguments more fine

21) to examine how truth is constructed.

And here we also see parallels between, Spivak’s retrics and the philosophies and theories has been built. And
they also talked about how truth is a much negated, much contested notion and there is an impossibility to see
the real to real or the truth of a true, when we are or when everything is being mediated by various other forces
at work - various other hierarchical forces.

¥ THE WOMAN AS SUBALTERN

 22) As for instance in this work she points to the British outlaw of the Sati which is the Hindu practice of
burning a widow on a her husband’s funeral pyre. And she also draws close attention to how there was a
complete absence of women’s voices from the debates on the abolition of Sati.

And the debates which were related to the abolition of Sati was one of the major anti colonial rhetoric on
which the history of the subaltern and the history of the nationalist movement itself has been written.

23) And rather than focusing on that event per say, rather than focusing on the debate, Spivak encourages us
to look at the ways in which the subaltern women have been silent.

She talks about the silencing of the subaltern women by the combined violence of colonialism and
patriarchy in Hindu society.
And also leave the foundations of certain kinds of historiographies being produced.

24) for example, she draws attention to the night of 1829 when the British law abolished Sati -

 She talks about how the event had been presented as white men saving brown women from brown men.

 This is a major entry point that she uses to talk about the voice the agency and the power which this
subaltern had or the subaltern never had.

 So, what are the implication in talking about Sati in this work which also talks about the postcolonial
presentation of the subaltern subjects.
While this intervention of abolishing Sati save some lives and may have given women a certain sensible
modicum of free choice; though not into alien idea of free choice, it also serve to secure British power
India and to underscore the asserted difference between British civilization and Indian barbarism.

25) So, whatever was presented as part of western modernity, whatever was presented as product of western
enlightenment, eurocentric enlightenment where highlighted as part of good civilization.

And whatever was part of Indian tradition, or Indian culture were also presented as barbarian practices.

26) Spivak’s also tells how this kind of story telling; this sort of a narrative had also led to a certain
construction of the image of the subalterns as well as the subaltern stories and historiography in general.

27) As Spivak proceeds further ; she illustrates how Hindu culture was driven underground, written outer
flow and denied any legitimacy through this sort of a privilege hierarchical kind of a narrative and a
rhetoric which was in place.

28) And she also asks this question, whether the today’s intellectuals can avoid a similar condescension
when they represent the oppressed and this question remain the heart of the discussion in the essay can
the subaltern speak.

And this question about how one can avoid the tone of condescension or how one can given agency to the
subaltern; when we are talking about the subordinate continues to remain at the heart of discussion in a number
of post colonial context.

And how can this essay be cited as an example of post modern approaches been used.

Spivak at some points and in this essay turns to the works of Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida. And then these are
also a theories and philosophers that we already taken a look at; one Spivake uses the number of post
structuralism approaches and while she remains indebted to be Derridian philosophy and the deconstruction
approaches.

29) She also critiques Foucault and Deleuze for committing epistemic violence; she is very conscious of the
fact that though she herself belongs to a certain poststructuralism mode of criticism, though she herself
passions and regulate her problematic within the post structural is irritatic she also acknowledges the
ways in which in a certain epistemic violence had been committed by these predominantly eurocentric
western thinkers.

30) She also highlights the ways in which a certain kind of a white, a European etymology was projected
through the critiques of a Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida and how they also eventually ended up of
forcing a certain kind of an epistemology on to the rest of the world; especially the third world.

 So, in this context we find Spivak’s turning the very tools used by the postmodernists against them.

The postmodernism had them critiques in the predominant of certain metanarrative. And here we find Spivak as
a postcolonial feminist critique critiquing the very ways in which the post modern theories had have also been
imposing a certain kind of a rhetoric a certain kind of a framework on to the rest of the world particularly the
third world.

In the cause of the D S I V also we can see how the acetous the line of the deconstruction
is a practice of everything being a construct through.

The Spivak illustrates that human consciousness reconstruct discursively and she also uses the example of the
subaltern subject for this. We do not constructed identities and we have written for this is especially true when it
comes to the subaltern position of a person who is also located in the third world.

And she see postcolonialism as a new instance of this item to liberate the other; the other being one of the
important ways in which postcolonial criticism talks about the subaltern.

Spivak ask very important question whether such work in succeed or not can the
subaltern speak as a title of B S I course and her answer is no.

Though she acknowledges the ways in which postcolonial studies in postcolonialism as a framework; opens at
certain avenues with discussion she is a very sceptical about the ways in which of the subaltern games a sense
of agency or the subaltern gains any kind of power or voice within this frameworks.

Because these frameworks are also predominantly western, they do not get any sense of agency, we do not get
any sense of power to the ones who are the marginalised; the ones

And when this movie also begin to critique the production of knowledge in postcolonial postmodern society,
she talks about how western academic thinking its produce in order to support western economical interest. And
this is always something that we find in fabulous and discussions of a Spivak as well as Appiah.

And she also argues that knowledge is never innocent and that expresses interest of hits produces, this is there
also find a very predominance a postmodern rhetoric at work and as a postcolonial protect. Spivak is also called
conscious of the fact that knowledge is like any other commodity that is exported from the west to the third
world.
Here we find a various ways in which one could identify parallels between the works of
postcolonialis and work of postmodernist.

This brings us to the question of agency and power.

We can easily identify the issues of agency and power being critiqued in the context of a postcolonial
feminism. Spivak speaks against the tendency of political movements to romanticize the other.

And she is also very critical of the suggestion that all third world people will stand in the same relation to global
capitalism and respond to it in the same way. And this is a position that he identifies as being essentialist and it
is this essentialism against which she primarily speaks.

And she particularly target the left it intellectuals who tend to essentialist the subaltern. And here we also find
she uses the Marxist framework to critique the Marxist critical practices itself; she also argues that the leftist
intellectuals in their attempt to essentials subaltern, they eventually end up replicating the colonial
discourses that the atom to critique.

So, here find here we find interesting ways in which Spivak invokes certain events from history, certain
frameworks from history and also exposed them for what they fail to do.

Now, we come to the heart of Spivak’s essay where she bring a speech of writing the subaltern.

Spivak is very critical of the many attempts from the outside to ameliorate the subalterns condition.

She identifies two major problems that could arise in trying to attempt to write the subaltern from the
perspectives of outside.

The first one being that logocentric assumption of cultural solidarity among a heterogeneous people as a
dangerous assumption.

And she is also extremely critical of any such assumption which is also inherently essentialist.

And secondly, she argues that when will attempt to write the subaltern from the outside; there is a certain
dependence on western intellectual to speak for the support and condition. And this condition does not allow the
subaltern to speak for themselves; this remains at the heart of her essay, these issues are continuing to be
discussed in the contemporary within postcolonial studies.

And it is a said point 3 brings in a twist in the tale by talking about the story of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri who had
left a suicide note behind her.

Bhubaneswari Bhaduri is not a well known person, she is not celebrity, she is not a historical figure either and
she uses this story, this incident as a text to analyse the complete absence of the subalterns voice.

Bhubaneswari Bhaduri becomes a text over here and she is a young woman who was
forced to hang herself because she did not wont to participate in a certain assassination
which she was assign to commit. In fact, she commit suicide, but I just have protest
against this assassination that she did not really agree with.
But the political act of a this protest was completely negated and the story was written by
her family and by the society in totally different way. Bhubaneswari Bhaduri suicide is
not seen as a protest on the contrary it was conveniently written of as an act of petty
personal slide; it was seen as the outcome of a failed love affect. The political nature of
the act which originally intended was totally negative and totally denied.
This eventually went down in history within the domestic history, within the societal
history as an event on misunderstood by everyone. Spivak uses this event to talk about
denial of agency the denial of voice within the subaltern and she you also uses this
example to talk about Indian women’s inability in general to speak within western
discourse. When one is being asked to speak within a predominantly western discourse;
there is no way in which one could also claim agency. And this is the problem that she
addresses, this is the problem which continues to be controversial within the discussions
of the postcolonialism.
And she also uses the tale of Bhubaneswari Bhaduri to show how Indian discourse has
been better by the storms of colonial history; how there is an impossibility to reclaim
identity to reclaim agency and reclaim voice when one continues to write the story
within a predominantly colonial framework within a predominantly colonial history.
(Refer Slide Time: 22:07)
And now I read out you a certain except from the essay can subaltern speak where is
Spivak illustrates that the subaltern as female cannot be hear or read, but in patriarchy
and imperialism subject constitution and object formation; the figure of the women
disappear not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the
displaced figuration of the third world women caught between tradition and
modernization.
It is the disappearance of the figure the women that is Spivak finds extremely disturbing.
And it is this disappearance that she tries to question, that she tries to engage within the
essay can the subaltern speak.
(Refer Slide Time: 22:48)
So, can the subaltern speak in multiple ways can be seen as a radical postcolonial work it
talks about the it engages with deconstructive interpretations of imperialism and also are
the fight against the colonization. And she also a seeks to interrogate the principles of
Marxism and feminism within a predominantly Derridean deconstruction.
(Refer Slide Time: 23:11)
And this is what Spivak once told about herself the my position is generally a reactive
one; I am viewed by Marxists as too codic, by feminists too male identified, by
indigenous theorists as too committed to western theory. I am uneasily pleased about
this; it is such an ambivalent position it is such a complicated position that also enables
us to talk about Spivak within postmodernist framework as well.
(Refer Slide Time: 23:38)
However it is towards the end of the essay that Spivak begins to show predominantly
postmodernist tendencies when she seeks to question even the postmodernist framework
within which she begins to locate her work and the outset.
We even within her predominantly post structurelist position by way of her reuse of the
deconstruction, we find that she finds improved into the critiques against postmodernism
as well. And here I will extensively from the latter half of the essay towards the end of
the essay.
I have attempted to use and go beyond Derridean deconstruction, which I do not
celebrate as feminism as such. However, in the context of the problematic I have
addressed; I find his morphology much more painstaking and useful than Foucaults and
Deleuzes immediate substantive involvement with more political issues. The latters
invitation to become women which can make their influence more dangerous for the US
acadamic as enthusiastic radical.
Derrida marks radical critique with the danger of appropriating the other by assimilation
he reads catachresis as the origin he calls for a rewriting of the utopian structural impulse
as rendering delirious that interior voice that is the voice of the other in us. I must here
acknowledge a long term usefulness in jacques Derrida which I seem no longer to find in
the authors of the history of sexuality and mille plateaux.
Here she is very clearly privileging the usefulness of Derridean deconstruction (Refer
Time: 25:14) are the Foucaults and Foucaults and Deleuzes work. And this does not
essentially mean that she is extremely uncritical of ways in which Derridas work is also
predominantly within a western framework, but she also brings us certain political slant
to the use of post modern theories over here.
And this how she is the subaltern cannot speak; there is no virtue 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, we cannot entirely say that the essay ends on a an negative or an pessimistic
node.
While she is conscious of the fact that subaltern cannot speak; she is also very positive
and more optimistic about the role of the feminist intellectual which could emerge in a
very different way perhaps in the coming decades.
(Refer Slide Time: 26:13)
To some of it would be possible to say that there is a certain postmodern effect that this
postcolonial work has (Refer Time: 26:23) subaltern speak. Spivak has been able to
successfully politicize Derridean deconstruction with the aim of elaborating a technique
for emancipator readings and cultural involvements.
This is also against the predominant criticism against postmodernism in general that
postmodernism is politically ambivalent that we cannot be used for any kind of
constructive political criticism. We find Spivak using deconstruction as a method and as
a tool to engage with the subaltern consciousness and expose the absences and gaps
within a nationalist as well as a colonialist historiography.
(Refer Slide Time: 26:59)
As and when we why interrupt I will also leave you whether certain code from
McCloskey. This is from her conversations with us Spivak and this is a passage with
particularly exposes the postmodern conondromon possibility which is at the heart of a
discussion from the beginning of this course.
McCloskey writes I feel most things in my life a positivist social engineer a Joan Baez
socialist; a man. Now I am free market feminist a quantitative postmodernist a woman, I
am not ashamed of these changes of mind as Keynes reply to the complaint that he has
changed his mind on free trade; when I get new information I change my mind what do
you do?.
My main point here is that it is possible to be postmodernist and procapitalist and
feminist all it once. Of course, I think it is not merely possible; I think it is desirable and
natural the three hang together; I claim together they do good work in the world. So, on
this positive encouraging note we wind up today’s session, I look forward to seeing when
the next session.
Thank you for listening.