“Can the Subaltern Speak?” by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: Summary and Critique

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.