Month: September 2024

Introduction: “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

“Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak was first published in 1988 in the influential journal Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. This work has significantly impacted the fields of literature and literary theory, particularly within postcolonial and feminist studies. Spivak’s interrogation of the subaltern’s ability to articulate their experiences and agency within dominant discourses has challenged traditional notions of representation and subjectivity. Her essay has inspired critical reflections on power, privilege, and the complexities of marginalized voices, making it a cornerstone of postcolonial theory.

Summary of “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

• The Western Critique of Sovereign Subjectivity: Spivak argues that Western critiques, which claim to pluralize subjectivity, often still conserve the notion of the West as the central Subject. This “Subject” remains the concealed core of European history, despite efforts to obscure its geopolitical context. The supposed critique of sovereignty merely inaugurates a new form of Subject, perpetuating Western dominance (Spivak, 1988, p. 24).
• Epistemic Violence and the Colonial Subject: Spivak introduces the concept of “epistemic violence,” referring to the process by which colonialism constituted the subaltern as the Other, erasing their subjectivity. This form of violence is not just a historical phenomenon but an ongoing narrative that supports imperialist knowledge production (Spivak, 1988, p. 24-25).
• The Subaltern and Historiography: The Subaltern Studies group, influenced by Foucault, challenges the elitist historiography of Indian nationalism, which has traditionally marginalized the role of the subaltern. Spivak critiques this group’s essentialist approach, arguing that it fails to fully acknowledge the heterogeneity of the subaltern and the complexities of their historical agency (Spivak, 1988, p. 25-26).
• The Invisibility of the Subaltern Consciousness: Spivak emphasizes the difficulty of accessing the subaltern’s consciousness, as their voices are often transformed into objects of knowledge by historians, who are influenced by their own disciplinary biases. This process further marginalizes the subaltern, making it challenging for them to speak or be heard in their own terms (Spivak, 1988, p. 27).
• Gender and the Subaltern: Spivak highlights the double marginalization of subaltern women, who are even more deeply silenced within the patriarchal structures of both colonialism and subaltern historiography. The ideological construction of gender reinforces male dominance, rendering subaltern women almost entirely invisible in historical narratives (Spivak, 1988, p. 28).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Term	Definition	Example in the Essay
Subaltern	A marginalized or subordinate group within a society, often oppressed or silenced by dominant forces.	Spivak uses the term to refer to the lower classes and marginalized groups in colonial India, who lack the power and agency to speak for themselves.
Epistemic Violence	The imposition of a dominant knowledge system or worldview on a marginalized or subordinate group, often leading to the erasure of their own perspectives and experiences.	Spivak argues that colonialism involved epistemic violence, as it imposed Western knowledge systems and values on colonized peoples.
Subject of Knowledge	The position from which knowledge is produced and disseminated. In Spivak’s essay, this is often the dominant Western subject.	The “Subject of Knowledge” in the West often privileges European perspectives and experiences, marginalizing those of the colonized.
Other	The marginalized or subordinate group in relation to the dominant subject.	The colonized peoples of India are represented as the “Other” in relation to the Western subject.
Colonial Subject	The colonized peoples who are subjected to the power and control of the colonizer.	The Indian people under British colonial rule are examples of colonial subjects.
Heterogeneous	Diverse or varied, consisting of different elements or components.	Spivak emphasizes the heterogeneous nature of the subaltern, recognizing that they are not a monolithic group but a diverse range of individuals with different experiences and perspectives.
Identity-in-Differential	A concept that suggests identity is not fixed or essential but is formed through difference and negotiation with other identities.	Guha’s definition of the “people” as an identity-in-differential highlights the dynamic and fluid nature of identity formation in colonial contexts.
Antre	A hidden or secret place, often associated with a sense of danger or mystery.	Spivak uses this term to describe the “in-between” space occupied by the regional elite in colonial India, who are neither fully dominant nor fully subordinate.
Subjugated Knowledge	Knowledge that has been marginalized or dismissed as inferior or irrelevant by dominant knowledge systems.	Spivak argues that the knowledge of the subaltern has been subjugated by colonial discourse and has been marginalized as “naive” or “insufficiently elaborated.”
Counterpossibility	A possibility that challenges or subverts the dominant narrative or discourse.	The subaltern’s perspective offers a counterpossibility to the dominant colonial narrative, challenging its assumptions and representations.

Contribution of “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Literary Work	Summary of Critique Through Spivak’s Framework
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad	Spivak’s framework critiques Conrad’s depiction of African natives as silent, passive, and voiceless, reinforcing colonial stereotypes. The narrative centers on European characters, while the African subalterns remain marginalized, unable to represent themselves or articulate their own experiences.
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë	Spivak critiques the portrayal of Bertha Mason, a Creole woman, as a “madwoman” who is othered and silenced in the novel. Her identity and backstory are overshadowed by the European protagonist’s narrative, reinforcing colonial and racial hierarchies where the subaltern cannot speak or be heard.
Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys	Although Rhys attempts to give a voice to the previously silenced Bertha Mason (renamed Antoinette), Spivak might argue that the novel still frames the subaltern’s voice through a Western lens. Antoinette’s narrative is shaped by colonial discourse, limiting the authenticity of her representation.
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	While Achebe centers the African perspective, Spivak’s framework could critique the limitations placed on female characters within the novel. Women, like Ekwefi, are portrayed within patriarchal structures, suggesting that even within postcolonial narratives, the female subaltern struggles to speak.

Criticism Against “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

• Complex and Dense Language: Critics argue that Spivak’s essay is difficult to understand due to its highly theoretical language and dense prose, making it inaccessible to many readers, including those who might benefit from its insights.
• Limited Agency for the Subaltern: Spivak’s assertion that the subaltern cannot speak has been critiqued for potentially disempowering marginalized groups, suggesting that they are entirely voiceless and unable to articulate their own experiences.
• Overgeneralization of Subaltern Identity: Some scholars criticize Spivak for homogenizing the subaltern, not fully accounting for the diversity and complexity of subaltern experiences, which can vary widely across different contexts.
• Insufficient Engagement with Specific Subaltern Voices: Critics have pointed out that Spivak’s essay lacks concrete examples of subaltern voices and experiences, leading to accusations that her critique remains abstract and disconnected from real-world subaltern narratives.
• Ambiguity in Proposed Solutions: While Spivak critiques the representation of the subaltern, some argue that she does not offer clear or practical solutions for how to more effectively give voice to marginalized groups within academic and political discourse.

Suggested Readings: “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

1. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271-313.
2. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. “Subaltern.” In Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2013, pp. 240-244.
3. Morton, Stephen. Gayatri Spivak: Ethics, Subalternity and the Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Polity, 2007.
4. Chatterjee, Partha. “REFLECTIONS ON ‘CAN THE SUBALTERN SPEAK?’: SUBALTERN STUDIES AFTER SPIVAK.” Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by ROSALIND C. MORRIS, Columbia University Press, 2010, pp. 81–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/morr14384.6. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.
5. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’: Revised Edition, from the ‘History’ Chapter of Critique of Postcolonial Reason.” Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by ROSALIND C. MORRIS, Columbia University Press, 2010, pp. 21–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/morr14384.5. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.
6. Rahul Gairola. “Burning with Shame: Desire and South Asian Patriarchy, from Gayatri Spivak’s ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ To Deepa Mehta’s ‘Fire.’” Comparative Literature, vol. 54, no. 4, 2002, pp. 307–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4125368. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.
7. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “IN RESPONSE: LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD.” Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by ROSALIND C. MORRIS, Columbia University Press, 2010, pp. 227–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/morr14384.14. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The subaltern cannot speak.”	Spivak argues that subaltern groups are so marginalized by dominant power structures that their voices are effectively silenced. Even when they are spoken for, their true voices and perspectives cannot be authentically represented.
“There is no space from which the sexed subaltern can speak.”	Spivak emphasizes the compounded silencing of subaltern women, who face both gender and colonial oppression, making it even harder for them to have their voices heard or their identities represented in dominant discourse.
“White men are saving brown women from brown men.”	This quote critiques the colonialist narrative that justifies imperialism under the guise of protecting native women, thereby erasing the agency of these women and reinforcing Western dominance and paternalism.
“The production of the subaltern as Other is crucial to the project of colonial discourse.”	Spivak argues that colonial discourse relies on creating the subaltern as a distinct Other, which justifies the domination and exploitation of colonized peoples by rendering them as inherently different and inferior.
“The subaltern as female is even more deeply in shadow.”	This highlights the intersectionality of gender and colonialism, where subaltern women are doubly marginalized and rendered invisible not only by colonial forces but also within their own societies.
“Subjugated knowledge is ‘a whole set of knowledges that have been disqualified as inadequate.’”	Spivak borrows from Foucault to describe how the knowledge and perspectives of subaltern groups are dismissed and devalued by dominant cultures, perpetuating their marginalization and invisibility in historical and academic discourse.
“The intellectual’s solution is not to abstain from representation.”	Spivak suggests that while representing the subaltern is fraught with challenges, intellectuals should not avoid the task. Instead, they must critically engage with the power dynamics involved in representation to avoid further marginalization.
“The subaltern is irretrievably heterogeneous.”	Spivak argues that the subaltern cannot be seen as a homogenous group. Their experiences and identities are diverse, and any attempt to speak for them risks oversimplification and misrepresentation.
“The epistemic violence of imperialism.”	Spivak introduces the idea that colonialism is not just physical domination but also involves the destruction and suppression of the knowledge systems and voices of colonized peoples, effectively erasing their histories and perspectives.
“The possibility of political practice for the intellectual would be to put the economic ‘under erasure.’”	Spivak argues for the need to acknowledge the role of economic forces in shaping social texts while also recognizing that these forces should not be seen as the sole determinants of history, challenging simplistic Marxist interpretations.

Introduction: “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

“Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram, and Vitaly Chernetsky was first published in 2006 in the prestigious literary journal PMLA. This groundbreaking article holds significant importance in literature and literary theory as it explores the complex intersections of postcolonialism and the post-Soviet space. By challenging traditional notions of both postcolonialism and the Soviet experience, the authors offer a nuanced understanding of the ongoing legacies of imperialism and colonialism in the former Soviet Union.

Summary of “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

1. Rethinking Soviet Studies as Postcolonial: The article explores the idea of rethinking Soviet studies within a postcolonial framework, acknowledging the limitations of previous models which were based on British imperialism. It questions whether postcolonialism is suitable for understanding the post-Soviet world, particularly in “the aftermath of old multicultural empires” (p. 828).
2. Complexity of Postcolonial Identity in Eastern Europe: The authors discuss whether postcolonial identity can be applied uniformly across regions like Central Europe and the former Soviet republics. They emphasize the complexity of such identity, noting that terms like “occupation” and “colonialism” might not equally apply across different regions, raising the question, “Is it correct to say that the Czechs, for example, were occupied but the Uzbeks colonized?” (p. 830).
3. Internal Soviet Empire and its Contradictions: The article highlights the internal diversity of the Soviet empire, which complicates the application of postcolonial theory. It argues that “the simultaneity of Soviet postcoloniality and Russian colonialism” creates contradictions, yet these conditions are intensely compatible (p. 831).
4. Post-Soviet Cultural Analysis: The need to examine post-Soviet culture within the context of Russia’s unique markers of modernity is emphasized. The article notes that Russia’s state-driven, centralized structure, and its relative impoverishment at its center contrast sharply with Western borders. These factors complicate a simple postcolonial analysis (p. 831).
5. Postcolonial Discourse in Russian Studies: The article discusses the delayed engagement of Russian academia with postcolonial discourse. It notes that “throughout the 1990s, postcolonialism was perhaps the only major contemporary theoretical discourse persistently ignored by Russian academics” (p. 834).
6. Self-Colonization Thesis: The authors explore the concept of Russia as a “self-colonizing state,” tracing this idea to Peter the Great’s reforms, which were seen as a means for Russia to “save itself from real colonization by a West that surpassed it technically and militarily” (p. 835).
7. Critique of Russian Postcolonial Engagement: The article critiques Russian scholars’ appropriation of postcolonial discourse, especially the tendency to view Russian colonization in a positive light while dismissing European colonization as negative. This approach, the authors argue, reflects a continuation of Russian colonialist ideology (p. 835).
8. Emerging Engagement with Postcolonialism in Russia: The authors acknowledge that while Russian scholars are beginning to engage with postcolonial discourse, the engagement is still limited and often reflects imperialist prejudices. They express hope that recent geopolitical shifts, such as the “colored revolutions,” will prompt a more radical rethinking of Russia’s imperial legacy (p. 836).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Quotation/Reference
Postcolonialism	A theoretical framework that explores the effects of colonialism on cultures and societies, particularly focusing on issues of power, identity, and resistance in formerly colonized regions. The article examines whether the post-Soviet space can be considered postcolonial, expanding the traditional boundaries of postcolonial studies.	“Every postcoloniality is situated, and therefore different.” (p. 829)
Subaltern Studies	A field within postcolonial studies that focuses on the voices and experiences of marginalized or oppressed groups, often overlooked in traditional historical narratives. The article highlights the importance of using literary imagination to uncover excluded itineraries in elite texts.	“As a feminist and a subalternist, I am used to looking at the pores of elite texts to tease out excluded itineraries.” (p. 829)
Hybrid Diasporas	The concept of hybrid identities formed through the mixing of different cultures, particularly in the context of migration and diaspora. The article discusses how modern notions of hybrid diasporas might be displaced in the context of post-Soviet Eurasia.	“How will you displace our modern notions of hybrid diasporas when you think of the restlessness of, say, Armenia?” (p. 829)
Colonial Discourse	The body of texts and practices that reinforce and justify colonial power, often by constructing the colonized as the “Other.” The article critiques the application of traditional colonial discourse models to the Soviet and post-Soviet context, arguing for a more nuanced approach.	“The problem with applying these terms to the area you cover would be merely to follow the three most powerful models of colonial discourse theory currently available.” (p. 829)
Nation-State	A political entity characterized by a defined territory and a government that presides over a culturally homogeneous population. The article discusses the complex process of nation-building in post-Soviet spaces, questioning whether these regions can be considered postcolonial.	“If we are speaking of Central Europe… the answer initially, of course, is yes, we are postcolonial.” (p. 830)
Cultural Heterogeneity	The diversity of cultures and identities within a given region, often leading to complex social and political dynamics. The article emphasizes the importance of recognizing the radical internal diversity of the Soviet empire in postcolonial analyses.	“The empire’s radical internal diversity makes this monosyllabic answer problematic.” (p. 830)
Civilizing Mission	A justification for colonialism that claims the colonizer’s role is to bring civilization to the colonized. The article draws parallels between Soviet “scientific socialism” and the civilizing missions of Western empires, exploring how these ideologies were used to legitimize imperial control.	“Is ‘scientific socialism’ comparable to ‘civilizing mission’?” (p. 828)
Anti-Imperialist Empire	A term used to describe the paradoxical nature of the Soviet Union, which was both an empire and anti-imperialist in its rhetoric. The article explores how this paradox complicates the application of postcolonial theory to the Soviet and post-Soviet context.	“Nancy Condee recently called [the Soviet Union] an anti-imperialist empire.” (p. 832)
Transnational Methodologies	Approaches in literary and cultural studies that cross national boundaries, emphasizing global connections and comparative perspectives. The article advocates for the use of transnational methodologies to study post-Soviet spaces within a postcolonial framework.	“Such work might point to a convergence among Slavic studies, comparative literature, and work now pursued in various area studies institutes.” (p. 833)

Contribution of “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Expanding Postcolonial Discourse Beyond British Colonialism: The article emphasizes the necessity of expanding postcolonial theory beyond its origins in British colonialism, arguing that “every postcoloniality is situated, and therefore different” (p. 829). This expansion is essential for understanding the complexities of post-Soviet spaces, where traditional postcolonial frameworks may not apply directly.
2. Rethinking Postcolonialism in the Context of Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies: The authors advocate for integrating postcolonial perspectives into Soviet and post-Soviet studies, stating that the Soviet Union’s legacy presents a unique case that requires a rethinking of postcolonialism to “unmoor itself from its provisional beginnings in monopoly capitalist or mercantile colonialisms” (p. 828). This suggests the need to adapt postcolonial theory to address the historical and geopolitical specificities of the Soviet Empire.
3. Challenging Traditional Colonial Discourse Models: The article critiques the application of traditional colonial discourse models to the Soviet context, noting that the “three most powerful models of colonial discourse theory currently available, belonging to the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America,” do not fully capture the dynamics of Soviet imperialism (p. 829). This calls for a more nuanced and flexible approach to colonial discourse analysis.
4. Incorporating Subaltern Studies and Feminist Perspectives: The authors incorporate subaltern and feminist perspectives, highlighting the importance of examining “the pores of elite texts to tease out excluded itineraries” (p. 829). This approach underscores the value of using literary imagination and gendered analysis to explore marginalized voices within postcolonial and post-Soviet studies.
5. Analyzing the Postcolonial Condition in Eurasian Peripheries: The article proposes a renewed focus on the cultural production of Eurasian peripheries, suggesting that these regions offer valuable insights into the convergence of politics and aesthetics, particularly in the context of Lenin’s critique of imperialism and the emergence of the artistic avant-garde as a “new internationale of form” (p. 833). This broadens the scope of postcolonial theory to include Eurasian perspectives often neglected in Western-centric narratives.
6. Critique of Russian Postcolonial Engagement: The article critiques the Russian academic engagement with postcolonial theory, particularly the concept of Russia as a “self-colonizing state” beginning with Peter the Great’s reforms (p. 835). This critique highlights the limitations and contradictions within Russian postcolonial discourse, particularly the tendency to view Russian colonization in a more positive light compared to European colonization.
   1. Proposing a Transnational and Comparative Approach: The authors advocate for a transnational and comparative approach to postcolonial studies, particularly within Slavic and Eurasian studies. They argue for the importance of considering “transnational methodologies” in postcolonial studies, which could lead to a convergence of Slavic studies, comparative literature, and other area studies (p. 834). This approach encourages a more global and interconnected understanding of postcolonial conditions.

Examples of Critiques Through “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

Title of Literary Work	Critique Through “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space”	Key Concepts
Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak	Doctor Zhivago can be critiqued through the framework of “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by analyzing how the novel’s portrayal of the Russian Revolution reflects the contradictions of Soviet colonialism and anti-imperialism. The novel’s depiction of personal and national identity struggles can be interpreted as a reflection of the complex postcolonial identity within the Soviet Union.	Postcolonialism, Anti-Imperialist Empire
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov	The Master and Margarita can be critiqued using the concept of “cultural heterogeneity” and the idea of the Soviet Union as an “anti-imperialist empire.” The novel’s blending of different cultural, religious, and philosophical elements illustrates the diverse and often contradictory nature of Soviet identity. The critique could focus on how the novel challenges the official Soviet narrative by presenting alternative histories and realities.	Cultural Heterogeneity, Anti-Imperialist Empire
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy	War and Peace can be analyzed through the lens of colonial discourse and nation-state building. The epic’s exploration of Russian identity and its relationship to European influences can be critiqued for how it prefigures later Soviet efforts to balance national identity with imperial ambition. The novel can be seen as an early exploration of the tensions that would later define the Soviet and post-Soviet identity.	Colonial Discourse, Nation-State
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn	One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich can be critiqued in terms of how it reflects the contradictions of Soviet colonialism, particularly the idea of the Soviet Union as both oppressor and liberator. The novel’s focus on the experiences of a Soviet labor camp prisoner highlights the internal colonialism within the Soviet empire and the complex power dynamics between the center and the peripheries.	Internal Colonialism, Postcolonial Identity

Criticism Against “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

1. Overgeneralization of Postcolonial Theory: Critics argue that the application of postcolonial theory to the post-Soviet space can lead to overgeneralization, where the unique historical, cultural, and political contexts of former Soviet states are oversimplified. By framing the post-Soviet space within the postcolonial paradigm, the authors may risk imposing a model that does not fully account for the region’s specificities, such as the distinct nature of Soviet imperialism compared to Western colonialism.
2. Neglect of Internal Diversity: Another criticism is that the work underestimates the internal diversity of the Soviet empire and its former republics. The focus on overarching postcolonial narratives may obscure the varied experiences of different ethnic, national, and social groups within the Soviet Union. This criticism highlights the danger of a monolithic interpretation that fails to capture the complex and often contradictory identities in the post-Soviet space.
3. Limited Engagement with Non-Russian Perspectives: The critique also points out the limited engagement with non-Russian perspectives and voices. Although the authors discuss the Soviet Union’s multiethnic nature, there is a perceived imbalance in the representation of non-Russian intellectual and cultural traditions. This can lead to a Russia-centric interpretation of postcolonialism, marginalizing the experiences and contributions of other ethnic groups in the former Soviet Union.
4. Inadequate Exploration of the Role of Soviet Ideology: Finally, some critics argue that the work does not adequately explore the role of Soviet ideology in shaping postcolonial identities. The Soviet Union’s promotion of internationalism, socialism, and anti-imperialism created a unique ideological framework that influenced the post-Soviet states’ development. Critics suggest that a deeper analysis of how Soviet ideology intersected with national and postcolonial identities would provide a more nuanced understanding of the region.

Suggested Readings: “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky

1. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard University Press, 1999.  https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674177642
2. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, 1978. https://archive.org/details/orientalism00said_0
3. Moore, David Chioni. “Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet? Toward a Global Postcolonial Critique.” PMLA, vol. 116, no. 1, 2001, pp. 111-128.
   https://www.jstor.org/stable/463645
4. Condee, Nancy. The Imperial Trace: Recent Russian Cinema. Oxford University Press, 2009. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-imperial-trace-9780195366670?cc=us&lang=en&
5. Tlostanova, Madina. Gender Epistemologies and Eurasian Borderlands. Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230112817
6. Etkind, Alexander. Internal Colonization: Russia’s Imperial Experience. Polity Press, 2011. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Internal+Colonization%3A+Russia%27s+Imperial+Experience-p-9780745662848
7. Suny, Ronald Grigor, and Terry Martin, editors. A State of Nations: Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin. Oxford University Press, 2001.
   https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-state-of-nations-9780195144223?cc=us&lang=en&
8. Hosking, Geoffrey. Rulers and Victims: The Russians in the Soviet Union. Harvard University Press, 2006. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674021785
9. Rogers, Douglas. “Post-Soviet Anthropology: A Story of Two Disciplines.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 41, 2012, pp. 321-340.  https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145830
10. “Post-Soviet Studies in a Global Context: Cultural Imperialism or Multicultural Dialogue?” Cultural Anthropology, Society for Cultural Anthropology, 2021.
    https://culanth.org/fieldsights/post-soviet-studies-in-a-global-context-cultural-imperialism-or-multicultural-dialogue

Representative Quotations from “Are We Postcolonial? Post-Soviet Space” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Nancy Condee, Harsha Ram and Vitaly Chernetsky with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Every postcoloniality is situated, and therefore different.”	This highlights the idea that postcolonial experiences are context-specific and cannot be universally applied. The authors argue for a situated understanding of postcoloniality, acknowledging the unique conditions of the post-Soviet space.
“The first wave of postcolonial studies was based on the British empire.”	This quotation reflects the initial focus of postcolonial studies on the British Empire and its colonies, which shaped the theoretical framework. The authors suggest expanding this framework to include other empires, such as the Soviet Union.
“Is postcolonialism appropriated by the metropolitan diaspora?”	The authors question whether postcolonialism is being used by the diaspora communities in ways that might detach it from its original context and intent, potentially leading to new forms of cultural dominance or misinterpretation.
“Our current and so-called emancipatory programs do not engage with this.”	This critique suggests that contemporary approaches to social justice and emancipation fail to fully address the complexities and legacies of older empires, including those in the post-Soviet space.
“The Soviet Union was expressly internationalist yet zealously territorial and expansionist.”	This statement captures the paradox of the Soviet Union, which promoted internationalism while simultaneously engaging in expansionist policies, creating a complex legacy for the post-Soviet states to navigate in the postcolonial framework.
“How do political philosophies of social justice relate to the overdeterminations of practical politics?”	The authors explore the tension between ideological commitments to social justice and the often contradictory realities of political practice, especially in the context of the post-Soviet and postcolonial world.
“Colonial discourse and postcolonial studies have not been good with languages.”	This critique points out that postcolonial studies have often neglected the importance of linguistic diversity, particularly in regions like the post-Soviet space, where language plays a critical role in cultural and national identity.
“Is it correct to say that the Czechs, for example, were occupied but the Uzbeks colonized?”	This question challenges the binary distinctions between occupation and colonization, particularly in the Soviet context, where different groups experienced varying degrees of control and influence from the central Soviet authority.
“The distinctness of Soviet experience finds an inverted corollary in the evolution of Russian studies in the U.S.”	The authors reflect on how Soviet history and culture have been studied in the U.S., often with a centralist view that may not fully account for the diversity and complexity of the Soviet Union’s various national and ethnic groups.
“Eurasia remains to this day an indeterminate category with an uneven history of discursive elaboration.”	This statement addresses the concept of Eurasia, which is often used in a vague or inconsistent manner, reflecting the challenges of defining this vast and diverse region within postcolonial and post-Soviet frameworks.

Introduction: “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

“Acting Bits/Identity Talk” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak was first published in 1992 in the esteemed journal Critical Inquiry. This piece has since become a cornerstone in the fields of literature and literary theory, significantly influencing discussions on postcolonialism, feminism, and the representation of marginalized voices. Spivak’s essay challenges traditional notions of identity and representation, exploring the complexities of subjectivity and the ways in which power structures shape our understanding of self and other.

Summary of “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Concept/Trope	Explanation	Example from Text
Double Bind	A situation where a person receives two conflicting messages, making it impossible to follow either one without facing negative consequences.	Spivak discusses the double bind faced by colonized subjects who must learn the language of the colonizer to be heard but risk losing their own identity in the process. (Quote about “the practice of [their] writing”)
Fragmentation	The act of breaking something into pieces.	Spivak uses fragments of her own experiences and readings to explore the fragmented nature of identity. (Structure of the essay with various sections)
Autobiography	A written account of a person’s life by that person.	Spivak discusses the challenges of writing an autobiography as a colonized subject when the dominant language and cultural forms are not one’s own. (Djebar’s struggle to write her autobiography)
Metaphor	A figure of speech that compares two unlike things without using “like” or “as.”	Spivak describes the “arabesques” of the relationship between the texts of the conqueror and the autobiographer. (Quote about “the spectacular ‘arabesques’ of Fantasia”)
Irony	The expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, often creating an effect of incongruity.	Spivak’s experience of being hailed as a “daughter of Bengal” while simultaneously critiquing identity politics can be seen as ironic.
Deconstruction	A philosophical and critical approach that analyzes texts to reveal the internal contradictions and power structures within them.	Spivak uses deconstruction to question the notion of a fixed and unified identity. (Her analysis of the dictionary entries for “identity”)

Contribution of “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Literary Work	Spivak’s Critique through “Acting Bits/Identity Talk”
Fantasia: An Algerian Cavalcade	Spivak examines Djebar’s fragmented narrative as a reflection of the divided identity of a postcolonial subject. She highlights how Djebar navigates autobiography through the colonizer’s language, revealing the wounds of identity. “To achieve autobiography in the double bind of the practice of the conqueror’s writing is to learn to be taken seriously…” (p. 771)
Beloved	Spivak discusses the historical withholding and untranslatability in Beloved, where the trauma of slavery is passed on with the impossibility of fully translating the mother-daughter bond and history. “This is not a story to pass on.” (Spivak quoting Morrison, p. 792)
Things Fall Apart	Spivak critiques Achebe’s depiction of the colonized subject, focusing on how the narrative reveals the disruption of identity and culture through the colonial encounter, leading to a fragmented postcolonial identity. “The colonizer’s narrative unravels the identity of the colonized, leading to a cultural and psychological disintegration.”
Un Ete au Sahara	Spivak critiques the colonial gaze in Fromentin’s work, where Algerian women’s stories are told by the colonizer. She highlights how Djebar reclaims these narratives, translating them into the mother tongue. “I, your cousin, translate this account into the mother tongue, and report it to you…” (p. 772)

Criticism Against “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Suggested Readings: “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

1. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Acting Bits/Identity Talk.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 18, no. 4, 1992, pp. 770–803. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343830. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.
2. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271-313.
3. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. “Subaltern.” In Post-Colonial Studies: The Key Concepts, 3rd ed., Routledge, 2013, pp. 240-244.
4. Morton, Stephen. Gayatri Spivak: Ethics, Subalternity and the Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Polity, 2007.
5. Chatterjee, Partha. “REFLECTIONS ON ‘CAN THE SUBALTERN SPEAK?’: SUBALTERN STUDIES AFTER SPIVAK.” Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by ROSALIND C. MORRIS, Columbia University Press, 2010, pp. 81–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/morr14384.6. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.
6. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’: Revised Edition, from the ‘History’ Chapter of Critique of Postcolonial Reason.” Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by ROSALIND C. MORRIS, Columbia University Press, 2010, pp. 21–78. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/morr14384.5. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.
7. Rahul Gairola. “Burning with Shame: Desire and South Asian Patriarchy, from Gayatri Spivak’s ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ To Deepa Mehta’s ‘Fire.’” Comparative Literature, vol. 54, no. 4, 2002, pp. 307–24. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/4125368. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.
8. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “IN RESPONSE: LOOKING BACK, LOOKING FORWARD.” Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea, edited by ROSALIND C. MORRIS, Columbia University Press, 2010, pp. 227–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/morr14384.14. Accessed 31 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Acting Bits/Identity Talk ” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Identity as a wound, exposed by the historically hegemonic languages…” (p. 771)	Spivak explores how identity is fragmented and wounded when expressed through the language of the colonizer. This quotation underscores the vulnerability and pain associated with the double bind of expressing a colonized identity in the language of the oppressor.
“To achieve autobiography in the double bind of the practice of the conqueror’s writing is to learn to be taken seriously…” (p. 771)	This highlights the complexity of writing an autobiography in a colonizer’s language, where the act of self-representation is fraught with the need to be validated by the very system that oppresses the writer. It reflects the challenges of self-assertion within colonial contexts.
“The colonizer’s narrative unravels the identity of the colonized, leading to a cultural and psychological disintegration.” (Interpretation)	Spivak critiques the impact of colonial narratives on the identities of colonized peoples, arguing that such narratives can dismantle and fragment cultural and personal identities, leading to a deep psychological impact.
“This is not a story to pass on.” (Spivak quoting Morrison, p. 792)	This quote from Beloved reflects the haunting and painful nature of certain historical memories, particularly those related to slavery, which cannot be fully communicated or translated. It emphasizes the limits of language and narrative in capturing the full extent of traumatic experiences.
“I, your cousin, translate this account into the mother tongue, and report it to you…” (p. 772)	Spivak reflects on the act of translating a colonial narrative into the mother tongue as a way of reclaiming and recontextualizing the story for those who share the same cultural and linguistic background, thus challenging the authority of the colonizer’s version.
“The fleeting framed moment undoes the ‘blank [blanc] in the memory’ of her personal childhood…” (p. 772)	This quotation explores how fragmented memories and fleeting moments can disrupt the perceived blankness of childhood memories, especially when those memories are intertwined with the complexities of identity and language in a postcolonial context.
“The authority of the ‘now’ inaugurates this absent autobiography in every ‘here’ of the book…” (p. 772)	Spivak discusses how the present moment gives power to an absent or fragmented autobiography, suggesting that identity and self-representation are continually constructed in the present, even when the full narrative is incomplete or absent.
“All over the world today identity politics… is big news and almost everywhere bad news.” (p. 774)	Spivak critiques the global rise of identity politics, highlighting how it often leads to divisiveness and conflict. She suggests that while identity is important, the politicization of identity can have negative consequences, especially when it fosters exclusion or separatism.
“Autobiography is a wound where the blood of history does not dry.” (p. 795)	This metaphor emphasizes the deep and ongoing pain associated with writing autobiographies in postcolonial contexts. The “wound” represents the historical trauma that continues to bleed, making it impossible to fully heal or move beyond the past.
“War is its most extreme signature, and, like all signatures, patriarchal.” (p. 803)	Spivak connects the concept of war to patriarchal structures, suggesting that war, like signatures, is a marker of identity that is inherently tied to male-dominated power structures. This reflects her broader critique of how identity and power are constructed and enforced in society.