Can the Subaltern Speak?

Spivak discusses one of the most problematic debates in subaltern studies: can the subaltern speak? Subalternity rises from a person’s lack of ability to voice their concerns. This may be due to a language barrier, or lack of understanding on part of the subaltern person to communicate in ways understandable to the dominant discourse. Whatever the cause of the subalternity, the idea is that the subaltern cannot represent themselves, themselves. This leaves a void filled by others. There is an immense problem here because these ‘others’ come not from the subaltern, but from outside it. They are subject to their own convictions and interpret the voice of the subaltern with their own convictions. She uses the example of the practice of Sati to establish how the voice of the women has been subsumed by under dominant discourses. The idea behind widow burning was the widow’s love and devotion for her husband. She did not want to live without her husband. It rose out of a positive desire to remain with your loved one. Yet the colonial discourse portrayed the practice as barbaric. It helped further the colonialist agenda and gave legitimacy to British Raj. Had a woman, made subject to such a practice had the capability to represent herself, the discourse would have been more understanding to Hindu culture and religious practice as opposed to seeing it as barbaric. I find this discussion extremely problematic. Where I am all against colonialism and the way it was perpetuated in this particular example, there is a certain brutality in the death of a widow in Sati which is ignored under the guise of ire for the British and their politics. There is a thin line between romanticizing the concept of Sati by looking at it positively and trying to look at it from the subaltern perspective. This reminds me of the example of the state imposing smallpox vaccination of some people very violently explained in Dipesh’s work. All modern rationality points towards the understanding that smallpox vaccination causes no harm. Yet the subaltern resists it. Should we leave him to a death by a curable disease in his ‘ignorance?’ Or should we impose the vaccination on the subaltern for their own betterment? I don’t know the answer. But Spivak takes a side and says the subaltern cannot speak.

I did not really understand the concepts of essentialism and epistemological violence.